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

[Xiexie]

You snatch the sentiments right out of my head. Good post.

[Tejano1]

just like shillary is attempting to snatch the election through lies, racialized attacks, and flat out thievery.

[efranklin]

I don't think building a coalition of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents is something to scoff at. It's how the reforms will actually get pushed through. The last time we had a Clinton in office there were plenty of "fights" to be won, but there were few victories. In 1994 we lost the House, we lost the Senate, we lost governorships, and we lost state houses. Now that, is what I call a "compromised" government.

[Nommo]

Did you ever hear Obama say "compromise"? They are there, and some will be there after Jan, 2009. Did it ever occur to you that what he says now could mean something completely different when he assumes office. Why not imagine him pulling an LBJ type "get in line" kind of move on some cowering repub? Don't you have an imagination for these things? Repubs are easy, if nothing else. They are bargain hunters of the first rank and I can see "Brotherman" selling them Brooklyn Bridge time after time.

Besides, they have their constituents who must be brought around as well. Even those fools have to realize that their world is crumbling, their precious freedoms are fleeting at best, and the world as they know it is changing in ways often beyond comprehension.
Still they can do no better than to obsess over his "race". They might as well indulge the fantasy and get him in office. His fate is likely to be that of the brother in "Night of the Living Dead", but he should knock 'em dead himself while there.

[wino486]

Reading most ot the comments on this blog leads me to believe that everyone is buying into their children's daydreams. I, too, have children (age 33 and age 31)that I love more than life. But I also know that Obama's dreams aren't going to solve all the problems in this country. When I was young in the 60's & 70's, I thought I knew more than my elders. I had big ideas about how my generation was going to be one of peace and love. Then reality set in. Bills, kids, illness, loss. I still have my hope, but now it is tempered with a realistic light. We need a strong leader, not a dreamer. HILLARY 08!

[repearwo]

I am 61, and I have not surrendered to the deluge of life. A person who has a dream is not a "dreamer", unless that is all they do. Obama was not my choice. I wanted RIchardson (VP would be nice). Obama is not jsut dreaming, he is working hard to achive his Dreams. I was very impressed with the orgnaization here in Texas. He planned a 50 state stradegy, and built an organization that will be there in the fall. He is on his way. Hillary planned only to Super Tuesday, rather much like Bush's plannung for the war. Now she is willing to drag the whole party down just because she had a flawed plan. I want a President that has the vison to see their dreams made into reality by good solid planning and foresight,

Dreams are what lead us to a better future, we do not want to hinder those who dare to dream as long as they work to make the dreams come true.

[SidSchwab]

I must be your age, with a child the same as yours. While I served in Vietnam, my wife worked for George McGovern. I know what realism is. The reality is that the politics that Hillary has adopted, namely that of distortion, allegation, subterfuge, is hardly that of a "strong leader." Nor of one who will find a way to solutions for the problems that George Bush has made nearly unsolvable. It will take an entirely new approach, one of consensus-building; and the only way to change those who think that the old way of behaving is what politics is all about, is for the voters to make it clear that their time has passed. It's too important. There may not, in fact, be any time left. But Hillary has shown herself, of late, to be of the school that says win at all costs, that says it's about the game and about burning your opponent. That's what got us here. It's time to leave it behind before it's too late. My grey hairs tell me it's so.

[Tejano1]

ages 33 and 31 do not constitute "children," wino. they're adults w/ tons of experience and ideas. just like me, see? we don't need to be patronized by a 60s burnout who has lost their ideals and become so cynical that they refer to hope and the desire to bring about political change as "dreamers." and by the way, the u.s. has had a "strong leader" for seven years now. all it's gotten us is war, war, war. now that's a nice thing to inherit from our oh-so-wise "elders." give me a break.

[repearwo]

Yes, I remember clearly the events of 2002, that really began publically in August. I warned people who were voting for Bush that we would be at war in less than two years. Anyone that knew who was supporting and backing Bush in 2000 that didn't know that war was a major part of the reason for the Bush/Cheney Presidency just wasn't paying attention. But then this is a Democracy where it is vital for people to be informed so of course 80% of the people in the US had not a clue.

In August Bush strut around his ranch pretending to clear land so he looked like a rancher, and told reporters that he did not need to ask anyone to go to war. Not the UN, not the Congress. He was Commander and could go to war as he saw fit. He was riding high in the polls and Democrats on the Hill were scared to oppose him.

Not so, someone(or several someones) who had access to the National Intelligence Assessment from the CIA. It was leaked all over the place in the fall of 2002. A group of former Bush I advisors came out against war in Iraq. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9901E0DA143DF935A2575BC0A9649C8B633 http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/iraq.baker/index.htmlml)

Again anyone who was listening, even a worker in Austin, Texas, could get the picture that Iraq was a loosing proposition. Yet despite this Bush got HIS war. But then he was jsut play acting as PResident. Have we forgotten that Bush is just a wind-up doll for the Neo-Cons. He knows nothing about War, skipped out on his generations. Heck, he skipped out on most of his contry club assignment to the Texas Guard.

So no it was not congress' war until they voted for it. Then it became Washington, DC's war. Yes, I remember. I remember clearly. I also remember clearly that one of the two candidates for President was there and voted for that war. That in itself is forgiveable, but instead, she cried that she did not know. Hogwash. Maybe most of the people in the US and about half of Democrats are that stupid, but I am not. She had every opportuity to know, and if she didn't it was her fault and not fit to be President. To send Americans to their death without having all the facts is a dereliction of duty.

She knew, she wanted to be PResident and was afraid that a no vote would be a sign of weakness so her politcal future was more important than the lives of nearly 4,000 soldiers.

When you start to remember, remember it all.

[BrooklynLager]

"75% of Congress voted for the war". True enough - but only half of the Senate Democrats did; THEIR votes made it bipartisan. Calling it Congress' war isn't spin - it's absolutely correct.

I marched against in NYC. I never heard a word of support from Barack Obama because NOBODY KNEW WHO HE WAS. But once I did, part of his portfolio was that he had opposed it in 2002. Good for him; if more Democrats had, we would now be able to say it was only Bush's fault.

Obama has never said or hinted that he would compromise on science, FISA, Roe, or any of the issues you've listed. When he talks about compromise, he's talking about over people, not issues. I just don't get this vitriol against him for - depending on whom you're listening to - being too cozy to Republicans, or being too liberal.

If you want a Democrat in the Whitehouse, you'd better get your girl Hillary to stop lobbing bombs against Obama, because she cannot catch up with him.

[misspeach2008]

"your girl Hillary" is a sexist remark unless "your boy Barack" is not racist

[FreedomLoverX]

If you haven't noticed, you can't get ANYTHING done in congress or senate without a bit of compromise, especially if you don't have a super majority. I'm surprised you don't seem to have a clue about that. Also, a huge way to motivate congress is from the ground up. That takes leadership and inspiration. That's why Obama would be best. Plus, he isn't a sleazy, lying, stealing, dishonest, care only about yourself and everyone else can go to hell, type of MONSTER that McHillary is. If there is any chance to bring abour REAL change, Obama is the one to do it. Better than the special interests that own the lying Hillary.

[sweeneymcqueen]

I suspected last week that Samantha Powers' "monster" comment was intentional (and not off the record, as she protested). Now I know my suspicions were well founded. The "monster" line, the dis heard round the world, has worked its potent and viral way into respectable public forums like this one. It really doesn't belong here. Your characterizations of Clinton are really weird and disturbing.
For the record, Adolf Hitler was a monster. Charles Manson, too.
Not Hillary Clinton.
By the way, you seem so sure about the sterling character and professional affiliations of Sen. Obama. Please let us know where you get your information so we can all bask in his goodness.

[elbowguts]

Oy. This column is the height of hypocrisy and double-talk. To laud Hillary Clinton, she of the Democrat in Republican clothing family, while slamming Barack Obama, who despite your apparent black-out to the facts, did speak forcefully and publically against the march to war in Iraq is just freakin' bizarre.

Compromise with the Republicans? Hillary didn't just compromise, she let herself be politically blackmailed into supporting this ridiculous misadventure. The Republicans called the tune and Hillary danced.

Sorry if I don't feel that's a significant accomplishment.

[BrooklynLager]

No, see - Hillary Clinton had nothing to do with the war that she voted for. It was Bush's war. As for Barack Obama - he should be ashamed for not doing a thing against this war; except for opposing it - it was Hillary who stood up for Bush while she was voting with him. Don't you get it?

[BHWolf]

No Sir; you don't get it! He did nothing to oppose the war. Obamanation sat quietly saying nothing and doing nothing. Check out his voting record: Present, present, present. The buy doesn't even cast his vote so he doesn't have a voting record!

What does Obamanation stand for? We may never know?

[Tejano1]

both of you are exactly right. reading breitweiser's post is like reading _alice in wonderland_.

[jackbauer0396]

Why didn't Clinton read the NIE?

Why didn't she support the Levin Amendment? (She actually said, in true Republican fashion, that it would be an "insult to our sovereignty." We've all heard that before. We've all heard that the unequivocal right for a war-mongering President always comes before the need for diplomacy.)

"I'm not against all wars--I'm against stupid wars." -Barack Obama, 2002.

He was right, time and time again. And now he's being attacked for being right. Whoa! Watch the Clintonian spin pull the rabbit out of the hat! Now it's HILLARY who should be commended for voting FOR the war, and Obama who should be criticized because Ms. Breitweiser didn't hear anything from him!

Hillary '08! Taking a page not out of Rove's playbook, out of Goebbel's playbook: If you repeat a lie enough times, it becomes the truth.

[kirksong]

Kristen - you are right on the issues. However, unless and until the dems gain two thirds vote in both houses - compromise is required. Senator Obama appears to have more appeal to many potential independent voters and even republicans. The Clinton's are great fighters - but this always has a severe backlash. It is crystal clear to me that McCain's primary hope would be to run against Hillary. The divisive bulldog politicking leads to gridlock - unless the President and congress move lock step - which allowed the republicans to rape and deceive the country for 7 long years.

[repearwo]

Compromise is required, but not when the lives of our soldiers are at risk and the issue is war. It is not some video game that you can start over if you don't get it right. Bush had the poll numbers and he was going to have it his way.

The President can not veto a bill that does not pass. No 2/3 majority was needed here. All that was needed was 41 patriots to stand and say no. Period. It takes 60 votes in the Senate to do just about anything. 59 would have ended the appropriation and the war. Where were those 41 patriots?

Clinton blew it and lied about why. Have we not had enough of that. Are we willing to have 4 more years of a President that lies whenever the going gets rough.

I do not know about Obama, but I know about Hillary, and I know about her now. I will never vote for McCain or Hillary and if that is the choice, I will write in the name of one of the wounded Vets from Texas.

[keepingfaith]

Amen! and Amen!

[altohone]

"Screw off Senator".

Those were my words when Hillary helped sell Bush's war on the floor of the Senate.

Hillary didn't "compromise".
She capitulated.

As Senator Rockefeller said- Obama was right, we were wrong.

Such a basic little line accepting the facts of reality... something Hillary STILL WON'T DO!

[Lemeritus]

Would that be "blue dog" Jay Rockefeller who continues to confound efforts to safeguard the privacy of Americans and regularly propounds immunity for the telecomms? That Rockefeller?

[Conservativeslayer]

Kristen your argument that Obama didn't do enough in 2002 to stop the Iraq war is pretty interesting. I guess putting your political career on the line, by being speaking against a politically popular war, isn't enough. Alright, so where's your criticism of Hillary? The woman who not only voted for the war, but refuses to even acknowledge she did that. She says it wasn't a vote for war, when the bill was titled authorization of use of force. Since your so willing to take the spec out of Obama's eye, why won't you take the log out of HIllary's? I remember your last column about how woman are better then men. I think you are so blinded by your female chauvinism, you can't bring yourself to write one negative word about Hillary. You can't handle the truth about Hillary, so you lash out at Obama.

[ESerafina42]

He was in a blue district of a blue state - he did not put his political career on the line. Oh, UNLESS , maybe, he was already planning on running for President. But no - this was an out-of-the-blue decision, forced upon the humble guy by his supporters. (Ha!)

[hopeless277]

Obama does indeed want compromise. He also knows that Republicans do not compromise on ANYTHING. Ergo, he will just have to roll over them. If they refuse to even talk, much as they are doing now, then with all good conscience, he will just have to proceed without the Republicans.

[VosVos]

Just b/c Obama wasn't allowed to vote doesn't mean Hillary gets a bye. Obama was being called Hussein by the people he was running against in IL. Despite his opponents calling him a follower or Islam, and touting his "strange" name, Obama took a very vocal and consistent stance against the war. While Hillary got to hide with 75% of her colleges Obama went out in a very alone and public way to be against the war while others tried to make him look like an evil terrorist. Bottom line, despite what Obama did, or would have done, Hillary dropped the ball and voted for the biggest disaster of the last 30 years. Her vote helped put us in such a horrible bind. She gets no pass and stop apologizing for her. At the very least she should have read the reports and looked at the data before following the herd. Follow the herd and you may end up as a lamb chop.