Where Were You in '02? Bush's War and the Prince of Darkness

Back in September 04, I had a meeting in the Senate Intelligence Committee offices. I was there to discuss 9/11 issues. The war in Iraq came up in our discussions. I clarified and said, "Oh, you mean Bush's war?" The republican staffer said, "The president? The president isn't responsible for this war. Congress voted for this war. It is Congress' war."

The staffer's wry, spooky smile (I actually call him the Prince of Darkness) oozed with absolute pride over his new Rovian spin of who to blame for the Iraq war.

I bluntly looked at him and said, "Congress' war? Are you kidding me? Do you mean to tell me you guys are going to try and sell that line of garbage to the American people? That is was Congress who created and took us to this war? That it was Congress who started this mess? Do you really think you are going to get away with that? You will get destroyed. Everyone knows that Bush is responsible for this war! He started it! He owns it! It is his war! And nobody will ever forget that!"

And yet in 2008 we Democrats seem to have forgotten that it was George Bush (along with the Republican war machine) that brought us first and foremost to the war in Iraq.

I wonder if the Republicans ever imagined the success of their spin.

Remember back in 2002. There was a drumbeat for war with Iraq. First it was a link between Iraq and 9/11. Then it was WMD. Then it was Saddam was a bad man and needed to be eliminated. And remember how the vast majority of the country fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Indeed, more than 75% of our Senate voted for the authorization to go to war -- including Senators Daschle, Dodd, Kerry, and Rockefeller I might add -- all of whom work as advisors on Barack Obama's campaign. And yes, so did Senator Hillary Clinton.

So where did you stand back in 2002, 2003 and 2004? Do you remember the fever? The frenzy? The momentum? Do you remember the call to speak with one united voice? That was Senate Majority Leader Daschle's plea to the American public back in 2002. Yeah, the same Tom Daschle whose advice and judgment Barack Obama seeks out daily on the campaign trail.

I remember it all. And, I know where I stood. I was down in Washington fighting for a 9/11 Commission and I was steadfast against the war in Iraq.

But back in '02, for those of us who dared to speak out against President Bush and his war in Iraq, we stood virtually alone. There was no resounding chorus of people calling "bullshit" on Bush's folly. No, back in 2002 you were called unpatriotic if you dared to question the president; labeled as helping the terrorists if you raised doubt about his divine call to action.

Now forgive me, but I do not recall the help (or the voice) of any Barack Obama from Illinois. Indeed, I cannot recall hearing or feeling the impact of any one speech from the Illinois Senator. Did he attend the rally on the mall in Washington? The marches and protests in NYC? Did he conduct national press interviews? Did he write any editorials? Organize any protest rallies? Mobilize the people? Did he write any petitions? If he did, I never saw any of them.

Yet according to Barack Obama, because he spoke out in 2002 against the war in Iraq, he is better qualified to be president.

And according to Barack Obama, since Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq, she is unfit to be President.

As Democrats we need to remember exactly who took us to war in Iraq. We need to remind ourselves exactly who is to blame for the huge price tag our soldiers and their families have paid. We need to never forget that it was George Bush who created this debacle. Costing us billions in dollars and worldwide respect.

Maybe that's what bothers me most about Barack Obama. He keeps talking about working with the Republicans. Reaching across the aisle. Compromise. Well, I've been to Washington. I have fought battles in Washington -- most of them against the Republicans -- to get 9/11 legislation passed into meaningful law.

And if there is one thing I know for sure right now, I do not feel like reaching across the aisle and finding compromise with Republicans particularly on any of the following issues: Roe v. Wade; torture; FISA surveillance and illegal wiretapping; unfounded wars with Iran, Syria, or any place else; stem cell research; the erosion of our constitution; alternative energy and global warming; and/or healthcare reforms.

So why does Barack Obama want to compromise on such issues? Doesn't he get it?

To me, those issues are non-negotiable. To me, after 8 long destructive years of Republican rule, there is no wiggle-room left for Republican taint and ruin. I remember all too well that it is the Republicans who are to blame for our nation's current precarious state.

That's why the Democrats must win the WH back in '08. We cannot afford another term of Republican ruin. That's why the only place I am willing to compromise is when it comes to figuring out the best way--the surest way--to get the Democrats in the WH.

So would somebody please tell Barack Obama to stop talking about shaking hands with Republicans and start talking about shaking hands with Hillary Clinton and her half of the Democratic party so we can all start working together to beat the Republicans.

Unity Ticket '08.

Comments

[Aaror]

Mrs. Breitweiser,
If you truly want to see a Democratic President, and a Democratic Congress, then you should not be advocating a unity ticket. If Hillary Clinton is on the ballot in 08, Republicans will come out in droves to vote against her, and then will vote for every Republican on the ballot with her. Ask any Democratic Congressperson in a purple district whether they want to campaign with Hillary, whether they think she improves their chances of winning.
If you want to see a Democratic Congress in 08, you need to start encouraging Hillary to drop out, it is not her year, and trying to help McCain beat Obama so that she can run in '12 instead of '16 is selfish and reprehensible.

[seawolf77]

Republicans have raised misplacing blame into an art form.

[chappelforpres]

I have a better question, Where was Hillary Clinton, the heir apparent to the nomination and by her own admission one of the the most influential Democratic voices in the Senate, from 2002 - 2007?

[standforpeace]

Kristen, nice attempt to make up into down through spin. However, your effort falls flat. First, when you dismiss someone who did not speak out against the war at a rally in New York or Washington but rather in a public forum in his home state you dismiss all of the grassroots efforts and voices in this country who spoke against the war and continue to do so today. In truth, Obama gave a speech that we all should be proud of. Indeed it was a speech that many, including Clinton who had the platform of the Senate floor ,should have given. However, rather than applauding Obama's sincere, courageous, and insigntful efforts to prevent a war, you would rather excuse one of the enablers of George Bush by arguing that she was one of many who stood on the wrong side. Even worse you want us to discount the most important political decision that Hillary Clinton ever made when deciding whether she is fit to be president. Whether they assign her authorizing vote to a lack of good judgement or to a lack of political courage, reasonable voters will factor it in to their vote choice. Because it matters. The truth is that if George Bush had not been able to gather the support of Congress, he would not have been able to put this horrible tragedy in motion. So yes all of those who voted to authorize his madness have to share in the accountability. Many of the other Democrats who voted to authorize have at least stepped forward to admit their mistake. That Clinton refuses to do so is particularly galling as is her recent vote to categorize the entire Iranian army as a terrorist force (which any fool can see could easily be used by Bush as a pretext to attack Iran). As angy as I am about Iraq, I am even more concerned about the next possible military venture. If we give our nomination to Hillary Clinton, what message will we sending? In my opinion, the message to Democrats with higher political aspirations will be: when in doubt support the use of force to solve foreign policy problems. It's an easy way to neutralize Republicans in the general election and Democratic voters will never hold you accountable. And that is not the message that I want to send.

[dawlishgal]

Well said. I, too, spoke out against the war and got a lot of criticism in return. My concern with Clinton's support of the war doesn't end there...she has refused to apologize for it (even though she demands apologies right and left from everybody else), but more import, she is THE Democrat who is most willing to accept money from corporate thugs. Her group has worked hard to minimize the efforts of Howard Dean and his DNC leadership--they even sent Carville out to try to get Dean fired.

Ms. Breitweiser is confused if she thinks that Clinton is on the side of peace-makers. She is on the side of the big corporations, and that is that.

When it comes to the wellbeing of Americans, it is the same corporate-concern at the expense of ordinary people. Why, pray tell, Ms. Breitweiser, do you think we still don't have any kind of decent government­-sponsored healthcare policy and Clinton accepts more from big healthcare corporations than does any other candidate, including Republicans? The answer is that Clinton (possibly deliberately) failed in her secretive, feeble, crony-driven attempt and that the healthcare corporations are still rewarding her for that failure and hoping that (if elected) she fails again.

[darker]

IT'S THE BOTTOM LINE:

How absurd it is to EVEN CONSIDER McCain.
It's time to DUMP all REPUBLICANS.

They helped Bush create the "nanny state for the rich", corporate welfare queens, war-mongering war profiteers, greedy Big Oil, deregulated mortgage bankers that
are crashing the USA Economy and making middle-income Americans PAY FOR IT.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Sen. Clinton doesn't need to 'compromise' with Republicans, she is one. She is soft on Choice, soft on Civil Rights, soft on personal freedoms (where was she on Terry Schiavo?), and totally in bed with CorporateAmerica (she voted for the Anti-Consumer Bankrupcy Bill, and for 7 years she's rubber-stamped every Trade deal that came across her desk), and she's never admitted she was wrong about or sorry for her vote to Authorize Use of Force in Iraq, only that she wish's she could have that vote back. I'm done with DINOs & Chickenshit Dems that GO ALONG TO GET ALONG.

Sen. Clinton is Evan Bayh in a pantsuit and I don't want him to be President either.

[Mariel]

John Edwards, where are you now? Biden, where are you? Even Huckabee, where are you? Better candidates all gone. Unless things change, I will not vote for the first time.

[neoconcriminals]

While I have enormous respect for Mrs. Breitweiser and the work she has done on
this country's behalf, it was her vote in 2000 that helped usher in the worst president in our history.

Now she has a better understanding of how the the more rational half of the country felt
when Bush came to office in 2000.

[Chachi]

Kristen,

Your arguments just don't hold water. You say you were at rallies and protests against the Iraq War in 2002. You know for sure, and admit, that Obama - while not a national figure yet - spoke out and made a speech against the Iraq War in IL. But, since you weren't personally there at the protest where he made his speech, and/or you didn't personally see any coverage of it on tv, then it doesn't count for you. What kind of argument is that? His speech only counts if it was at one of the rally's/protests you were at in DC or NY, but since it was in IL it doesn't count???

Case closed. You, like Senator Clinton, consistently show that your judgement is questionable. I guess that's why you support her.

Also, this sentence you wrote, "And according to Barack Obama, since Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq, she is unfit to be President," is just a flat out lie. Obama never said Hillary is unfit to be president. Again, a flat out lie on your part. Interestingly enough, it is your candidate that is the only one who has suggested that their opponent is unfit to be president.

[sky2evan]

Ms. Breitweiser,

You really need to be more objective in your criticisms.


You say you don't want to compromise with Republicans on "Roe v. Wade; torture; FISA surveillance and illegal wiretapping; unfounded wars with Iran, Syria, or any place else; stem cell research; the erosion of our constitution; alternative energy and global warming; and/or healthcare reforms."


Although you do not mention it, your evident "heroine" Ms. Clinton was supportive of torture in limited circumstances up until last year; she skipped out on voting last month for the Cardin Amendment (against telecom immunity) yet Mr. Obama voted for it; she voted for Kyle-Lieberman to open the door to attacking Iran (Obama not present, but has since apologized); and she, along with Mr. McCain, refused to sign the American Freedom Pledge (supported by Human Rights Watch, Amnesty Intl, et al) to restore constitutional rights (Obama did). (http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?pid=239574).


On these issues, Clinton evidently sides with McCain and Republicans. And if you've been paying any attention to Ms. Clinton's campaign comments (McCain and herself are ready to be Commander-in-Chief but Obama is not), and her campaign tactics (3AM ad + Somali photo), she acts as if she were a McCain/Republican. Actually, sometimes she is even worse than McCain, because at least McCain publicly repudiated one of his backers for lingering on Obama's middle name, yet Clinton left the doubt door open when she said Obama was not a Muslim "as far as I know". No wonder she accepts money from the vast right wing conspiracy of Rupert Murdoch, and considers FOX News an acceptable forum for Democrats in which to have a political debate. Clinton is half-Republican.


So in this context, your last line is extremely ironic, "So would somebody please tell Barack Obama to stop talking about shaking hands with Republicans and start talking about shaking hands with Hillary Clinton and her half of the Democratic party so we can all start working together to beat the Republicans."


The last time Obama and Clinton shook hands and hugged was at the Austin TX debate, and we all know what happened right after that: the day after, she was mocking him about celestial angels and the sky opening up, and the 2nd day after that, she was scolding him with "Shame on you" for mailers that had already been out for weeks.


Ms. Breitweiser, might I suggest YOU try shaking the hands of someone who scolds you with "Shame on you!" in front of 300 million Americans.


For someone who supports reopening 9/11, you also happen to support the candidate who takes the most money from the defense industry, which is the greatest single benefactor of 9/11. If you think Clinton is going to do anything about 9/11 (other than go to war with Iran), well, I politely suggest that's quite a fairy tale and you may want to take off your rosy feminist glasses.


So of the remaining contenders, Mr. McCain "100 years in Iraq and Bomb Iran", Ms. Clinton's I'm- subsidized­-by-the-de­fense-indu­stry and "It's 3AM and only Me-and-Mr. McCain are ready", and Mr. Obama's speech... well, it's pretty clear who is the least warmongering of the 3.

[getrealalready]

you still do it for me, skye...

[sky2evan]

Very flattering! Long time no see - hope you've been well lately...

[deutchs]

Wonderful refutation of the skewed logic in this blog.

[banjomike]

Kristen, you're to be applauded for your actions regarding the 9/11 committee. To do what you did took guts, rage, and deep commitment.
I agree with all your non-negotiable points, too, but we must keep the horse in front of the cart right now.
Democrats have a real good way of turning themselves into a circular firing squad before conventions. The task at hand is to get a candidate who will turn the non-committed voters, and the disenchanted Repub voters toward voting for a Democrat. Look at what we are offering these swing voters- a woman and a black man. Sure, that's historic as hell, but either way it goes, we Dems have a hard uphill slag in front of us, and McCain is a well-known white Conservative who has had his fights with Bush. He doesn't require the big leap of faith for a better America that the disaffected need to make for our candidates.
Faith is the single element that is needed right now for both parties. Faith that the next President will start swinging this huge oil-tanker of a mess we're in toward a better course. Faith that the deep divisions in the Congress will somehow begin to be bridged so the deadlock can be broken. Faith that the too-long war will come to some end that will stop the killing while leaving America with a little bit of self respect and a little bit of dignity. Faith that we won't end up like a thrid world country, up to our necks in perpetual debt and eternal financial crisis.
We should, and need, to battle this out among ourselves, but our candidate needs to be the one that most of us have faith in, and we need to take things one stage at a time. There is nothing new in your non-negotiation points; both parties have been slugging them out for far too long now as it is, and new ways must be found other than planting feet and more pounding.

Our choices consist of one candidate who has micro solutions, and one who has macro solutions. The Neo-Con's agenda is completely bankrupt, and the Republicans have nothing to replace those ideas. It would be deadly stupid to nominate a candidate who makes the party choice easy, and more stupid to tip any plans off to the Repubs before we have a candidate.

Save your wrath for the general election- we're really going to need it then. Until we have a Democrat President, all the rest is just wishful thinking.

[davedave]

"And according to Barack Obama, since Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the president to go to war in Iraq, she is unfit to be President."

noooooooooooo

the reason that hillary can't be president is she didn't learn from her mistake.

she luuuuuuved the war. she very grudgingly has admitted it wasn't a swell idea...because some people didn''t like her vote. not all the dead people. not the lies. not the fact that we are less safe. not the $3.50 a gallon gas. not the blah, blah, blah,,,,

the reason that bush is bush is he doesn't learn. its a bad kind of autism.

if he wasn't the leader of america, i'd feel sorry for him. he is, so i feel sorry for me!

d

[getrealalready]

gingrmac, t'is you the swamp...

[jtshp]

When are the Democrats going stop looking at their nominees as the be all and end all candidate for president. They should be looking real hard at their sorry choices to decide which of the two can actually beat McCain. They don't and probably won't. At best, those outside the democratic party are going to think of the democratic nominee as the lesser of two evils, if we're lucky.

[fairwitness]

"...after 8 long destructive years of Republican rule, there is no wiggle-room left for Republican taint and ruin."

Absolutely right, and your concerns about Obama's seeming willingness to "compromise" with Republicans are well founded and my main concern about him as well. I prefer him 100% over Hillary, who cannot be counted on for ANYTHING but the pursuit of power at all costs (who can deny that after the last few weeks?), but I really hope that he is making conciliatory sounds so as to avoid alarming those democratic voters who STILL, contrary to all evidence, think the Republicans can play nice, but that he will allow his sense of righteous indignation to guide him in rolling back all the damages done by the Republicans over the last 7 years.

[gingrmac]

That vitriol towards Hillary that is widely employed and embraced by the Obama campaign and his band of fanatics is taken directly from the Republicans playbook. AND... is the reason why the Democrats will not win in November. The division and vitriol between the Obama and Clinton campaign is far-reaching. We will NOT be united in November. If Obama and his crew of kids honestly believe that Hillary supporters will follow him mindlessly like his naive band of fanatics do -- THINK AGAIN. NO WAY.

[Obamamo]

It is Hillary Lieberman Clinton who is dividing the Democratic Party. May I remind you that it's her who is praising McWar MCaine over Obama. It is her campaign that constantly uses Rovian disgusting tactics. It is her that practices the politics of slice and dice.