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

[getrealalready]

Excuse me, but isn't Hillary the one shaking hands with McCain? It's lookin' pretty funky out there lately. I'm not sure what side of the swamp Hillary's on anymore.

[gingrmac]

LOL!!! What's been looking pretty funky for a long time is the tactics of Obama. BO is the one that embraced Ronald Reagan. And, if you criticized him for that -- you're a racist. BO is the one that prides himself in telling his stories about ALL of the Republicans flocking to his rallies and whispering in his ear. He can NOT serve 2 gods -- either he is a Republican or a Democrat. And, the way that he and his campaign readily, easily and blatantly employ Republican smear tactics and attacks against Hillary -- I would venture to say that he is behaving like a true, blue Republican. No much hope, unity or change with him. It seems that he is swimming on his side of the swamp, along with his posse of delusional wannabes.

[getrealalready]

would you like to borrow my swamp goggles, gingrmac?

[getrealalready]

see my above comments missplaced above (and not immediately below here)

[manslagt]

This publicity whore's 15 minutes were up long ago.

www.sinsofthehusband.com
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CM9lvNongXA

[getrealalready]

If I were Barack, I would start squawking about WHAT IS SIMPLY UNTRUE REGARDING HER SUPERIOR EXPERIENCES IN MAKING THE WORLD A SAFER PLACE TO LIVE. Why do you want another LIAR for President? Barack has more scruples than Hillary in a nano second.

[jtshp]

Barack has more scruples than Hillary in a nano second.

But can he get elected? Once the evil Hillary is out of the picture, who are you going to blame when McCain wins?

[getrealalready]

jtshyp, I'll blame Hillary if McCain wins, but MCcain will never win.

[getrealalready]

Patriotism is obviously embodied in all the candidates. Aside from all negative rantings here, only one of these players is the most sincere. If you buy it's McCain, you will have friends and neighbors who will die at war. If you think it's Hillary, you will be lied to while she's telling the truth cause noone knows who she is from one day to the next. if you believe it's Obama, you will be running on what this country was founded on, TRUE GRIT AND PILGRIM STRENGTH. If I hadn't run through the streets of DC away from tear gas bombs myself during the Vietnam War protests, I wouldn't have a platform here. NIXON/BUSH­/HILLARY/M­CCAIN. It's all the same if you ask me.

[getrealalready]

Patriotism is obviously embodied in all the candidates. Aside from all negative rantings here, only one of these players is the most sincere. If you buy it's McCain, you will have friends, neighbors and/orrelatives who will die at war. If you think it's Hillary, you will be lied to while she's telling the truth cause noone knows who she is from one day to the next. if you believe it's Obama, you will be running on what this country was founded on, TRUE GRIT AND PILGRIM STRENGTH. If I hadn't run through the streets of DC away from tear gas bombs myself during the Vietnam War protests, I wouldn't have a platform here. NIXON/BUSH­/HILLARY/M­CCAIN. It's all the same if you ask me.

[marjamund]

From weeks of following this campaign very closely I came to see what I believe to be clear sociopathic tendencies in Clinton...­and I felt a rush of what felt like fear for America.
Having had some experience with this personality type in the past..all I can say is "beware" voters. People with no conscience have just that..no conscience.

[getrealalready]

GO TO HUFFPOSTS'S OTHER BLOG TODAY: "CLINTON'S FOREIGN EXPERIENCE IS MORE LIMITED THAN WHAT SHE SAYS.."

[LunaNik]

If Obama thinks he can end partisan politics in Washington, he's either incredibly naive or he's been drinking bong water.

There is absolutely no common ground between the Parties; we are sharply divided on every issue you can name from the "hot button" issues like abortion and gay marriage, to the War, the economy, and the health care crisis.

And, frankly, I'm totally uninterested in joining hands and singing "Kumbaya" with people who have wiped their asses with the Constitution and pillaged my country to line their pockets.

[elkabong]

Hillary Clinton voted to authorize the use of force because she felt she had presidential aspirations and felt she needed to hawk it up. Also, shewas one of a large minority of Congressional Democrats afraid of looking weak on National Security.

The MAJORITY of Congressional Democrats voted NO on the resolution. They shouldn't be given short shrift.

Also, there was ONLY a slight majority of Americans who believed we should invade Iraq. 60% said we shouldn't invade without a UN resolution to the effect. Your war-hysteria is a myth.

I don't begrudge Hillary her ambition, I admire her for it, and her fears of looking "too soft" to be CIC were not unfounded. I understand the tremendous pressure Democrats were under from the Republicans from the White House and from our corporate media - but if you succumb, bet on BUSH and lose THIS big, it's hard for me to remain sympathetic

I like a lot of things about Hillary but I wish she had done the strong thing instead of the thing to make her appear strong. She's capable of either. She'd have had my support if she'd chosen the former.

Bush DID promise to exhaust all options and go BACK to the UN for a new Resolution before invading. The weapons inspectors WERE on the ground in Iraq reporting progress (finding nothing) and pleading for more time when Bush told them to "get out" so he could commit "Shock and Awe", shovel tons of cash to his pals at ExxonMobile and the M.I.C., execute Neocon and free-marketeers' pipe dreams, win re-election and call himself a "War President"­...oh, and hurry "so our troops [could] avoid the brutal Iraqi summer"... five summers ago:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KvDe7Z-ykDo

Hillary gave him a hand.

[StillAmused]

Clinton-bashers obviously never READ the Joint Resolution -- ALL OF IT -- which was NOT a 'vote to go to war' (unless you're a moron who only reads titles) --

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/print/20021002-2.html

... OR Clinton's floor speech at the time of the vote --

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=233783&&

They also overlook the war criminal who LIED to Congress AND the American people (right there on your tee-vee) when he claimed military action would be "a last resort" -- then promptly pulled the inspectors and invaded, actually in VIOLATION of provisions of the Joint Resolution. (Or should we subscribe to the rule that a President of the United States must be ASSUMED to be LYING in matters of such devastating import?)

... but, then, the Crayola version of history is so much more fun -- and it goes with the colored party balloons.

[elderly]

Forget the sarcasm.

Your candidate voted for the resolution for one reason; she favored her political career over the safety and future of this country. If she did not know who she was dealing with she should have called me. I knew and her failing to consider this is a failure of judgment the consequences of which are too tragic and devastating to discount.

This alone is sufficient to disqualify her from consideration as president of this nation.

[getrealalready]

RIGHT THE F-ON, ELDERLY-

[StillAmused]

Skip the self-righteous, hypocritical posturing.

Did Obama call you for your sage guidance when he consistently voted with Clinton on all military funding authorizations for Iraq... once he was actually IN the Senate?

Is that alone sufficient to disqualify HIM, as well, from consideration as president of this nation?

Just imagine if you'd thought your sanctimony through to its logical conclusion­...

[MrsWakely]

Part of Obama's appeal, a great part, I might add, is that he will provide a clean break with the past. I don't feel a surge of anything when he says he spoke out against the war. But, he did. From the Illinois State Senate. May as well have been Pitcairn Island. I can't really understand the things Kristen feels, but I imagine if I was in her position, I'd want to get something in return for all my pain and suffering. And that day may come. Bush being frog-marched off to prison would be nice. "Hillary and Obama" will be a disappointment to me, because I think, first of all, he'll win, and second, he shouldn't offer HER jack shit. He should pick someone who can do the job if needed, help with the "experience" bullshit (was Lincoln "experienced" when he came in? No. Was John Adams ready to be commander in chief? No, not a military man. Jefferson? Nope. Him neither) and get Clinton away from the White House. The country needs, desperately needs, to MOVE ON. Move on from the Clintons, the Bush's, the whole 9-11 "war on terror" bullsh*t, and these endless f******g wars about who did what, when, and who is responsible for the decision to invade Iraq, and the seemingly endless mindset we are still stuck in. We need to stop hearing from Cindy Sheehan, and the Jersey Girls, and the other cottage industry participants in our latest long, national nightmare. We need Obama, who I actually think has half a brain in his head, and isn't going to see things in the useless (say like Frankenstein) "Republicans - BAAAAAAD!" "Democrats­... PRETTY BAAAAAAD TOOOOOOO!" way. My God the nation needs to get off its f*****g a** and move FORWARD. Right now? Obama is our best shot at that. Now, watch the democrats blow it. Just watch.

[jtshp]

But can he win against McCain? Why are both the HRC and Obama camps so sure that their nominee is going to win the general election. They just assume a Democrat is going to sweep into office.

[realpolitic]

Well, the article starts correctly and then goes very wrong. It is Bush's war. Hillary did vote for it, probably due to political expediency, as standing in the way of the war at the time was political suicide, given the country's mood. Obama did eloquently speak out against the war giving the reasons why it will not be a cakewalk and would, in fact, be a mistake.

We must first win the election before deciding what is or is not non-negotiable. Rancor with the Republicans is not the way to draw Independent voters to one's side. Total partiality is what we were fed under Bush and it did not work. Do we want the same under Democratic leadership? We should not compromise in some areas and, in others, we can and should to make headway.

Hillary did not compromise when she first proposed a health care plan covering all when her husband was President. As a result, we ended up with no health care proposal. This uncompromising approach was not a win for Democrats. Elect Senator Obama!

[tbone99]

I think you do not include the context in which Hilary's healthcare proposal debuted.Ru­sh Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich were basically leading a relentless Inquisition against the Clintons.D­aily they derided every small detail of their lives as the epitome of the enemy "liberalis­m".Hilary could have personally thrown herself in front of a speeding train and saved the passengers and they would have found that comtemptible.

We don't really know what that healthcare plan might have provided as it was targeted very negatively by the insurance companies at it's inception thru tv ads.There was no compromise to be had ,because the Repugs at that time were determined to make the Clinton presidency a failure , no matter what the cost to the nation as a whole.

[silverball]

you are absolutely correct about that time period and how the repubs went into full attack mode about anything clinton...­.and the most disgusting thing about it is this: "no matter what the cost to the nation as a whole"....­.it only got worse in 1994, culminating with the "impeachme­nt"...cert­ainly not what the founding fathers hoped for, but it shows the wisdom of hteir thinking with the 3 separate, BUT EQUAL, branches of government­...to protect us from ourselves.­..

if you read much history, what becomes clear is that most GREAT leaders governed with the masses in mind, not for the fortunate few.....an­d not only listened to, but encourage honest opinion and dissent...­.it's about "We the people"...­.not me and my friends...­there's a lot to be said about the appeal of a message of hope and inclusivity and working together for the good of all....rat­her than more of the same....

[uberlefty]

Nice twisted logic oh Clinton surrogate. Obama did oppose the war and spoke out against it when it was seen as treasonous. He was the rare politician who did. Acting as though this puts him in the same category as Hillary is spin of the worst kind. I marched against the war. Many of my friends and neighbors marched against the war. YOU do not own the franchise on the anti-war movement. The one Democratic senator from my state ( Oregon) voted against it. If he had not I wouldnt vote for him and would vote for his primary challenger. HILLARY VOTED FOR THE WAR!!! You can rinse and spin it all you want. She was elected to look after the American peoples best interest. She was elected to exercise her best judgment free of emotion. That is how a republic works ( see Federalist # 10 ), representative government is designed to insulate policy from the whim of emotionally or ideologically driven factions. Hillary made a informed decision to authorize the war. I suspect because she thought it was the politically expedient thing to do. She was more interested in political cover for herself than the best interests of this country. As reaching out to republicans no one is more guilty of this than Bill Clinton himself. He realized as does Obama that around half this country is conservative. I dont like it but thats it. You cant kick their asses into agreeing with you. Hillary likes the image of a tough fighter but her senate record says otherwise. If you believe that this country needs more years of one party paying back the other for their sins you are part of the problem not the solution.

[democraticjack]

You seem to have forgotten which state Senator Clinton represents and I'll give you a clue; it's not 4000 miles away from the Twin Towers. For your selling points, you throw out her speech regarding her vote or distort it to cast her in the most negative light. Politically expedient? Ask Alice Palmer about political expediency.

[repearwo]

You seem to forget that Iraq had nothing to do with anything in New York State. If you still beleive that Sadam had any thing to do with 911, you need to come out of that cave you have been hiding in and read the recent pentagon report.

If the Bush administration was as good tat he economy, health care, and foreign policy, as it is making the people of the US that things that did not happen did happen, then we would not be in the mess we are in right now.

[getrealalready]

Hillary Clinton came to the New York Senate to begin her future campaign for President. Why not start in your native state? I'm a New Yorker. I want my state run by NY'ers. I studied Hillary's ascent long before 911. I'll take Obama's pledge to restore honesty and integrity to the American people any day over Hillary's pompous, lying, propagandizing, manipulative BS about having more experience and electability-
Hillary has begun sounding like an auctioneer at her own rallies.
Y U K!

[getrealalready]

Your strategy and insights as to a Dream Ticket should be held in a private meeting between the two candidates. Why bother with us when it is them you have to convince?

[getrealalready]

Your strategy and insights as to a Dream Ticket should be held in a private meeting between the two candidates. Why bother with us when it is them you have to convince? Also, why bash Obama? That's what Hillary does. U are not presenting a unity ticket at all....

[kfdan]

"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."

It's pretty easy to blame Bush and Cheney for starting the war. That doesn't really get the heart of the issue. The neo-con vision of grabbing the oil is very much at the center of this war as a tactic to assure American and British dominance over oil production. This vision further necessitates that a Unitary Presidency (dictatorship) be established to continue the war no matter who is President. Of course, Obama as President may very well buck the vision but he will find it very difficult to stop the juggernaut that is moving toward a ONE WORLD ORDER. This ORDER is about control of resources and and needs both Democratic and Republican party support to succeed! That it was espoused by Bush senior only supports the contention that Bush junior is not his own man.
We need to look a bit deeper into the matter to really access the impact and likely results of this push for resources. The Democratic and Republican party members need to look at the underlying reasoning for the Iraq war not just blame an idiot and his darth vader for something that is supported by leaders in both parties! It's about the Empire!

[ailbhe]

Bush would never have been able to go to war without all those Democrats who voted for it!

Obama should work with the good people in both parties who voted against it and sideline those who voted for it.

Forget this silly partisan nonsense and let Obama get the best from all sides to oppose warmongering, fascist torturers.

Six Republicans voted against the war; Ron Paul of Texas, James A. Leach of Iowa, John N. Hostettler of Indiana, Constance A. Morella of Maryland, Amo Houghton of New York, and John J. Duncan of Tennessee.

As for Clintons claims not to know what she was voting for, these people did; http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/10/11/194543.shtml

Bush has no powers that Congress did not hand him on a plate, they could have opposed him but at the time it was politically expedient not to, such cowardice and moral degeneracy is responsible for the hundreds of thousands of deaths, millions of refugees and ceaseless violence.

Blame the Bush administration, media outlets who promoted it and those who voted for it in equal measure.

[davidly]

All the more reason not to vote for either of 'em. Or McCain. They all have so much blood on their hands; and we all have at least a little. Oh what a hilariously sad comedy of errors within this tragedy we call living.

[realpolitic]

You sound like a nihilist.

[davidly]

Thanks. Only part-time. It doesn't pay very well. At any rate, for what it's worth, the main point I was trying to make, if you'll forgive my explanation, was that it certainly makes as much sense as the "Unity Ticket". I thought the Clintons didn't believe in fairy tales.

[Grulg]

Great post. I agree. Prince Obama-giving a speech from the safety of a backwater backbench local political wilderness of Springfield is one thing. Actually having to put yourself out there in DC in the Senate and make a vote-against the tide esp. in 2002-well, that's something else entirely.

[bish66]

Success has many fathers, failure is an orphan child. Same is true for wars that are in quagmires. Back in 2002, everybody was crying for Iraqi blood. Those pesty Frenchies and Germans in the Security council were punished by boycotts for their resistance and French fries were re-christianed into Freedom fries.

If you want to remember how people were treated back then, if they were against the war, just try to say anything publically against Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., because the reactions are similar.

Obama became famous because of a speech. Not because of that speech from 2002, because of the one from 2004 where he endorsed and lauded John Kerry and John Edwards, both senators who voted for the Resolution. In that speech, you find little reference to the war, no word about the fact that it was wrong for Kerry to vote for it, no word about what Obama now claims to have known all along, that the war was and is wrong.

And have you people actually bothered to read that 2002 speech or are you just following Obamas account of that speech? Just a few quotes...

"Good afternoon. Let me begin by saying that although this has been billed as an anti-war rally, I stand before you as someone who is not opposed to war in all circumstan­ces."

"That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. "

Nice loophole, isn't it? Sell the war as intelligent and he is on board. And no word about Afghanistan, bin Laden is mentioned once, al Qaeda twice.

Have a look here: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki//Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech)

Much was made of Clinton's vote for the resolution, but nobody mentions her speech http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.htmll). Maybe because it exceeds the attention span of a regular voter.

"This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.

My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world. "

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. "

I still can not figure out, why that Obama guy is thought to be a peacenik and a good orator...

[Tejano1]

maybe because he is, unlike shillary, who is a political coward w/ a stilted delivery.

[Conservativeslayer]

"So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort. "
Nice try Hillary supporter. Hillary can try to claim she wasn't voting for war, but that's a little hard to do when the title of the bill was AUTHORIZATION OF USE OF FORCE IN IRAQ. Just like Hillary trying to have it both ways. Saying she wasn't voting for war, when we all know what the title of the bill was. So she was dishonest then as she is dishonest now. She was voting for war and she knew it. Yet she still tries to claim she didn't vote for war. I could forgive her for it if she'd acknowledge that she made a mistake, but she just won't do it. So she tries to do a rewrite on history. Well I for one am not going to fall for it, You on the other hand....

[democraticjack]

That's the trouble with some Obama supporters. They confuse the title of the bill with the content. They are headline readers and think a sound bite represents a whole conversation. Context, nuance and substance are apparently foreign words in their lexicon of ideas.

[sweeneymcqueen]

Whatever side you take in the prize fight between Clinton and Obama, let's not overlook the fact that Kristen Breitweiser, whose post we're commenting on, is a real patriot (and a really smart person).
I'm sure I'm not the first to say she belongs in Congress or the Senate.
Don't forget that she had a front-row seat on some heavy national security matters. That's a privilege she "earned" under some pretty awful circumstances. Read her bio.
Whatever we think of her opinion, we should thank her and her fellow "Jersey Girls" for pushing both Republicans and Democrats to create the 9/11 Commission, and for continuing to criticize the Bush administration.

[realpolitic]

I am sure she appreciates your endorsement. Actually, getting the 9-11 Commission together was great work.