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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I think he meant the Democrats across the aisle too! You know, the lawyers like Clinton who always tell you to get it in writing, but yet took George Bush at his word according to what she has said. What kind of a lawyer doesn't get it in writing - oh wait, let me answer my own question - a pretty bad one! There's your competence and experience for ya!
Barack *does not* talk about compromise. He talks about skillfully winning over Republicans. And he always uses the phrase "some Republican
GreenT2 is exactly correct. Sometimes these boards get too obtuse even when the arguments sound good. You have stated what is, as it is. A pleasure to read. Thanks.
Obama took a public stand against the was while he was in the midst of a campaign for the Senate.Thi
Your portrayal is simply a way to lesson the perception of Clinton's vote for the way.
Quite transparent, actually..
With all due respect, I think you're misrepresenting Obama's position. I don't recall him ever saying that he wants to compromise on Roe v. Wade, torture, warrantless wiretapping, war with Iran, stem cell research, or any of the other things you list. What he wants to do, as I see it, is to move this country in a progressive direction, using his vision and power of persuasion to get independents and some moderate Republicans on board. Obviously, there are some on the far right who are beyond hope. But all he is trying to do is build enough of a coalition to bring about change. There is a difference between coalition-building and compromise. Will it work? Who knows? But the alternative is more of the same.
Let me get this straight: Kristen Breitweiser is bothered by Obama constantly saying he'll work with Republicans-- though he opposed the GOP-led war effort in 2002-- and somehow Senator Clinton gets a pass for working with Republicans to bring about that war?
Sure, Tom Daschle voted for the war. That's why he's not running for president-- or why I wouldn't vote for him. Susan Rice, Samantha Power, Tom Daschle-- they aren't the candidate. Obama is. They do happen to be very smart, very experienced individuals whose advice is still of tremendous value.
If you take a simplistic view of a candidate's positions and plans, either through bias or lack of effort to search deeper, don't be surprised if the candidate ends up looking-- well, simplistic.
Works with Republicans-- therefore, will be soft on woman's right to choose. Opposed war in 2002, but voted for funding once Senator-- therefore, not really against the war. How easy it is to play that game.
And that's the point. If you play the usual Washington games, you'll come up with the same conclusions. Get a hazy notion of your opponent in your mind. Oversimplify his or her views. Then attack. In the process, lose sight of any common areas of interest you may have, or at least respect for an alternative perspective. Don't enjoy the complexity of the world-- it threatens.
I'm not trying to say Kristen Breitweiser is doing all these things. I'm only saying that those who oppose Obama-- or are just bothered by him-- tend be those who have the most foggy impression of who he is and where he stands.
It's like they decided a long time ago what type of person Obama is and they're just waiting for reality to catch up with their prejudgment.
I don't think this is about "hazy" notions of our opponents (Republicans) or "foggy" impressions of Obama. The rhetoric is foggy, the impression is clear.
Look, in principle, I'm all for finding areas of common ground so that we can move forward. But I think Breitweiser is correct to question Obama's rhetoric about "reaching across the aisle." The last 15 year have given me a very distinct picture of the Republicans basic strategy: why compromise when you can obstruct?
The issue here is trust. Many of us have no basis for trust in Republicans, so when Obama promises to "work with them", we find it hard to trust him. (And we don't trust Hillary for a whole different set of reasons.) Sure, he gives a good speech. His appeals to "post-partisanship" are just what many people want to hear, rightfully frustrated as they are by the Washington gridlock. That's part of his core persona of "change" -- he's not like those other partisan politicians.
But when have the Republicans shown ANY willingness to compromise? In their dictionary, "compromise" means "I give up a little to get all the important stuff [retroactive immunity anyone?] and you get nothing." So if Obama is serious about working with Republicans, he's either naive, or he's really just another pandering politician -- albeit smart enough to know the best lie to use this time around.
And as for giving Clinton a "pass" -- come on, this isn't Fox News. She's not obliged to be equally critical of both candidates in the same piece, and it doesn't mean she favors Clinton because she chose to question Obama's "philosophy".
It's true, by the time this election is over, Obama (if he wins) wouldn't be able to work much with Republicans. The whole Muslim-smearing thing-- tends to ruin bipartisanship.
Breitweiser oversimplifies by not doing her homework. Obama is clearly pro-choice. He is constantly talking about ending illegal wiretapping, shuttting down Guantanamo, restoring habeas corpus, stopping torture.
The way he would work with Republican politicians is to convince them that Republicans voters do want a better health-care system, do care about global climate change, and do want better schools. The polls show that already. But if he can say, "Voters in your state or district want us to acomplish something-- let's get it done" then there's a better chance than if he demonized them in the old politics way.
Trying to re-write history? It must be hard when we all are here to remind you. I remember how it all went down, we all do. Those of us not affected by our hate, that is.
You wrote a post a few months back saying that party infighting would be too destructive, and that whoever had less delegates after Super Tuesday should cede the nomination to the person who had the most. It was sage advice. I suggest you go back and read it, because as of today, roughly half of the supporters of each candidate say they will not be satisfied if the other candidate wins.
Thanks Hillary.
"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 Republican
That's why he should be running and you shouldn't. Nor did he specify compromise on Roe v Wade, etc. He knows -- as should we all -- that to find solutions to the energy problems, the deficits, global warming, health care there will need to be a fundamentally different tone. It's not about compromise, it's about consensus. It's not about denigrating your opponent, it's about addressing issues. There was a time when I thought Hillary got that. No more. People need to reject her style and that of people like Rep. King, Karl Rove, Newt; it's that scorching kind of politics that has led to where we are. The only way forward is to vote for someone who lays claim to a new way; and to make it clear that we'll no longer accept the bridge-burning of the right and, of late, of Hillary.
Kristen Breitweiser's piece raises some interesting issues about the way the Iraq war is playing out in Obama's campaign strategy, and how campaigns are organized around political expediency as much as they are around principles. The pro-Authorization votes of high-profile Obama advisors like Daschle, Dodd and Kerry demonstrate this point.
Obama's early opposition to the war (an admirable thing) is the centerpiece of his campaign against Clinton. I say his "campaign against Clinton" because his proactive campaign -- what he proposes to accomplish -- is not so clear.
In any event, war is a notoriously tricky political issue. I'm still uncomfortable with Senator Kerry's enlistment in the Naval Reserve during the height of the Vietnam War, a horrific war fueled by an unpopular and unfair draft. Yet, we were asked in 2004 to consider only Sen. Kerry's actions after his Navy stint was complete, when he joined the leadership of VVAW. In other words, we were asked to accommodate Kerry's change of heart. And most Democrats, including myself, did just that.
It would be helpful if Obama supporters took a long -- and realistic -- view of the Obama campaign organization and acknowledged that Sen. Obama has gathered a group of pols (Washington insiders in every sense of the word) to help move his bid for the Presidency forward. Read the resumes. I would also ask that they'd take a good, long look at Hillary Clinton's career since her graduation from law school. Pay special attention to her work on health care in the 1990s, and to the names and party affiliations of those who opposed her progressive proposals. If people took a truly critical and intelligent look at both candidates, we wouldn't have to read things like "Queen hillary" in the comment posts.
"And yes, so did Senator Hillary Clinton."
No. Especially, so did Hillary Clinton. You seem to forget that, while Kerry and others voted in favor of the resolution on ostensibly the same grounds that Hillary did, the others managed to demonstrate consistency on this issue by speaking out against Bush the minute he impusively declared an invasio, whereas Hillary enthusiastically stood behind the president, with such overzealous spectacl as shouting down members of CodePink with that certifiable bullshit that "I AM THE SENATOR FROM NEW YORK AND I WILL NOT PUT THE SECURITY OF AMERICAN PEOPLE AT RISK!!!!"
And furthermore, Hillary Clinton has already demonstrated her affinity for REpublican decisions by supporting a more belligerent stance on Iran borderlining on justifying an impending invasion, and furthermore refusing to negotiate with members of the so-called Axis of Evil unless the leaders of such nations bend over backward toward conforming to our desires.
And furthermore, I'm getting sick and tired of the irreverent tirade that chides that Obama, while opposing the war, apparently didn't oppose it "vigorously enough". What the hell did you expect him to do? Single-handedly bash in the white house when virtually nobody in any legislative body stood with him? HELLO!!!!!
Evidently, it's apparently not enough the Obama opposed the war in Iraq, as the only means of satisfying the expectations of those supporting HIllary Clinton is to prove his ostensible status as a miracle worker, that he somehow could have singlehandedly prevented the invasion from happening. Evidently, the above arguments have nothing to do with Obama's so-called complicity in the War in Iraq, so much as providing a consolation to Hillary supporters who would prefer to feel better about staying their predisposition for a particular candidate by deluding themselves into thinking that Obama was equally responsible.
Congress requires a degree of collaboration with your peers (note: not the same as cravenly selling out). The presidency does not. Restoring sanity to government will require someone with both determination and mental health at the same time.
Great analysis Kristen. The Obama lovers are so hateful in their remarks. Everyone needs to see the hatred that is spewed by these Obama fanatics. Come on People - GROW UP!
"As Democrats we need to remember exactly who took us to war in Iraq."
----------
and you should remember who gave him the green light.
would you believe a man whose family fortune comes from oil and weapons if he said that he would only go to war in an oil-rich country as a last resort? please.
stop trying to excuse the dem enabling. there is no justification for ever supporting bush on this one.
This is ridiculous.
Have you heard what Clinton said about her vote?????
The speeches she gave sound like Bush speak. She was proud of her vote, not because in her heart of hearts it was the right vote, but because she was laying the ground for a presidential run. I believe that. Or if she really thought it was the right vote, then why were all the rest of us so much smarter than the Senator from NY who had spent 8 years in the whitehouse? Why?
Clinton should have apologized for her vote, but she thought that she'd be the nominee and as a woman wanted to appear strong on defense. She needs to live with that for the rest of her life. Obama should continue to point out the truth about Hillary and find a running mate who is ready and right on day one.
Quote: "Please forgive him. I guess Chicago doesn't matter.
If a tree falls in Chicago, and lots of people hear it but not Kristen Breitweiser, does it make a sound?"
Chicago is a latte-sipping boutique city with a significant African American population. So of course marching there doesn't count.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
