George Will says W 2003 decision is worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history

[kaz]

This is more indication that it was not a failure or mistake to abide by the terms of the 2008 Bush Maliki SOFA when Obama presided over the end of the war that truly was the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history.

Please, showing again you're StillobsessedwithW. As much as I oppose the Iraq invasion, it wasn't even the worst policy failure happening in 2003. That would be trying to nation build in Afghanistan. A monumentally stupid idea that has failed repeatedly through history.

As for history though, these are a few no brainer worse than Iraq:
Treaty of Paris:
Spanish American War
The Vietnam war
Letting Russia take half of Europe after WWII
The Bay of Pigs

While it wasn't our job, at least we took out a despot who started two middle east wars by invading other nations, used chemical weapons on both other countries and his own people, killed hundreds of thousands of Shiites, funded terrorism and tried to murder as many Kurds as he could. To call that the worst is ridiculous.

To call the Bay of Pigs worse than Iraq is the dumbest post I've seen in a while.

Seriously? In addition to murdering freedom fighters who would not have invaded had they not asked for and thought they were getting support from Kennedy, the Bay of Pigs:

- Put the US on the brink of nuclear war with the USSR

- Put a Soviet doormat 90 miles from our shore. Before the Bay of Pigs, Castro didn't trust the Soviets and limited their access. After the Bay of Pigs, he believed we were a real threat to him and he let them in completely.

Now Iraq, go...

 

[whutTHEYsay]

LAR 10170093

Yes yes ! Hussein was just about ready to cooperate..... Really he was thos time...... Morons

Saddam Hussein was in fact defined as cooperating on process from day one of inspections and pro-actively cooperating on what Dr.Blix called substance for several weeks prior to the invasion. That adds up to you being one of many morons that favored Americans dying in a needless war that was absolutely not necessary when Bush decided to do it some time after March 10 2003 when there were absolutely no Democrats in the room as that decision was ignorantly being made.

I wonder if any of you recall when Bush stated this:

"I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands." Bush43 Oct ‘02 20021007n0001

A few years later I wrote a reply to the Washington Post regarding Mr Stephen Hadley's convenient memory lapse that Bush and all the US Congress men and women had Bush's qualification about "IF NECESSARY" on their minds when they voted for the AUMF in October 2002. That AUMF actually authorizes the use of force against Iraq only 'IF it was to become necessary' to do so. Clue for the morons. It never became necessary, but Bush did it anyway.

And this poll shows that even if the public's impression was that Saddam was not cooperating when he actually was, the public still preferred to avoid war and deal with the WMD through the UN inspection process even if it took more time.

Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take military action fairly soon: 35% Tot……..55% Repub…….. 23% Dem
Give weapons inspectors' time: 60% Tot……..38% Repub…….. 75% Dem

No One Remembers “IF NECESSARY”

Bush Aide Fires Back at Critics On Justification for War in Iraq
By Peter Baker; Washington Post Staff Writer; Friday, November 11, 2005

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley is quoted in the above report to have said, "Some of the critics today believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people."

That much is close to being true, but it leaves out the most important two words with regard to the invasion of Iraq. They are "IF NECESSARY" and no one remembers. The silence on "IF NECESSARY" from Administration officials such as Mr. Hadley and from writers on your staff is quite disturbing. Most of us non-connected schmucks, who've paid some attention, had it right as we heard and understood the President's words during the buildup to possible war. On October 2002, he told an audience in Cincinnati, Ohio that he had just asked, "Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands." I understand why the White House and the incumbent political party do not recognize the significance of "IF NECESSARY" but I cannot understand why journalists don't know either. It's very frustrating.

I remember feeling as if I was in the majority with regard to opposition of a hasty invasion of Iraq during the few months before shock and awe was launched. It turns out, I was, in a majority when "IF NECESSARY" is allowed to be in the equation. Here's a question that we all should have been asking back then.

Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
(Total) (Republicans) (Democrats)
Take military action fairly soon: 35% T……..55% R…….. 23% D
Give weapons inspectors' time: 60% T……..38% R…….. 75% D

The above CBS poll taken at the end of February 2003 suggests why the American people now have the gut feeling we were 'taken for a ride' by President Bush and all who favored an invasion around him. We all have strong feelings there was something wrong with kicking the inspectors out, so hastily, when the President decided it was absolutely necessary to do so.

Necessary? Even though the UN inspectors were in Iraq, doing the best rounds of inspections ever with the most active cooperation from the Baathist regime they had ever seen. They wanted a few more months. It was President Bush who decided, in what he called "the final days of decision" to stop the best intelligence gatherers on Saddam's suspected WMD arsenal from finishing the job. This is not a matter of hindsight having 20/20 vision. The US and UK intelligence by the first week in March was very suspect and that suspicion was very public. The CBS poll should have prevailed but it could not stand up to the prospect of shock and awe that excited the news media that was bored with such anti-invasion common sense. That is too bad for the lives of over 2000 US soldiers.

The Washington Post does not see the credibility gap on why it was necessary to invade.
As witnessed by Mr. Hadley's remark about WMD they don't get it either. Please help us explain it to them. Start by asking President Bush one simple question. Why did we invade Iraq when UN inspectors were doing a pretty good job resolving the WMD crisis? What was the rush? Why was it necessary? -NF Feb ‘06 20060221p0604

 

[healthmyths]

Bush is the prime operator for making Iraq happen

Bush is completely alone as the only one that decided in March 2003 to drive the UN inspectors out of Iraq so that the US military could secure the stockpiles of WMD's from falling into the hands of 9/11 terrorists.

That is why George Will attacks the Decision, not the process.


"""The 2003 invasion of Iraq, the worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history, .."""

There is no disputing that what George Will calls worst foreign policy decision in U.S. history, was a decision made by only one man. Bush may have been pushed but he made the decision and cannot put the blame anywhere but himself. The inspectors where there. SH offered to let the CIA and other US WMD experts come in. Bush alone 'decided' to reject that offer.

Using Will's logic then the REALLY worst foreign policy decision was GHB 1991 Desert Storm.
Because the decision was NOT made by GWB to Liberate
Iraq, but by preceding decisions starting with GHB Desert Storm.
Saddam's decision to starve 576,000 children so as NOT to tell the world he had NO WMDs. That was Saddam's decision.
On October 31, 1998 Clinton signed into law H.R. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act.[4] The new Act appropriated funds for Iraqi opposition groups in the hope of removing Saddam Hussein from power and replacing his regime with a democracy.
In the aftermath of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998, Iraq announced it would no longer respect the no-fly zones and resumed its efforts in shooting down Allied aircraft. Saddam Hussein offered a $14,000 reward to anyone who could accomplish this task, but no manned aircraft were ever shot down by Iraq. Air strikes by British and American aircraft against Iraqi claimed anti-aircraft and military targets continued weekly over the next few years. In the early 2000s (decade), the U.S. developed a contingency plan, Operation Desert Badger for dealing with pilots shot down over Iraqi no-fly zones.
Saddam decided to ignore that decision by Bill Clinton.
Finally Saddam decided NOT to abide by the 1991 Cease Fire.
Those decisions were made before GWB enforced as did Bill Clinton as did GHB the will of the world.

 

[JakeStarkey]

George Will understands far better than hm ever could the issue of Iraq and American foreign policy.

GW is for serious, hm is for grins and chuckles.

 

[healthmyths]

LAR 10170093

Yes yes ! Hussein was just about ready to cooperate..... Really he was thos time...... Morons

Saddam Hussein was in fact defined as cooperating on process from day one of inspections and pro-actively cooperating on what Dr.Blix called substance for several weeks prior to the invasion. That adds up to you being one of many morons that favored Americans dying in a needless war that was absolutely not necessary when Bush decided to do it some time after March 10 2003 when there were absolutely no Democrats in the room as that decision was ignorantly being made.


I wonder if any of you recall when Bush stated this:

"I have asked Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands." Bush43 Oct ‘02 20021007n0001

A few years later I wrote a reply to the Washington Post regarding Mr Stephen Hadley's convenient memory lapse that Bush and all the US Congress men and women had Bush's qualification about "IF NECESSARY" on their minds when they voted for the AUMF in October 2002. That AUMF actually authorizes the use of force against Iraq only 'IF it was to become necessary' to do so. Clue for the morons. It never became necessary, but Bush did it anyway.

And this poll shows that even if the public's impression was that Saddam was not cooperating when he actually was, the public still preferred to avoid war and deal with the WMD through the UN inspection process even if it took more time.

Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
Take military action fairly soon: 35% Tot……..55% Repub…….. 23% Dem
Give weapons inspectors' time: 60% Tot……..38% Repub…….. 75% Dem

No One Remembers “IF NECESSARY”

Bush Aide Fires Back at Critics On Justification for War in Iraq
By Peter Baker; Washington Post Staff Writer; Friday, November 11, 2005

National security adviser Stephen J. Hadley is quoted in the above report to have said, "Some of the critics today believed themselves in 2002 that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, they stated that belief, and they voted to authorize the use of force in Iraq because they believed Saddam Hussein posed a dangerous threat to the American people."

That much is close to being true, but it leaves out the most important two words with regard to the invasion of Iraq. They are "IF NECESSARY" and no one remembers. The silence on "IF NECESSARY" from Administration officials such as Mr. Hadley and from writers on your staff is quite disturbing. Most of us non-connected schmucks, who've paid some attention, had it right as we heard and understood the President's words during the buildup to possible war. On October 2002, he told an audience in Cincinnati, Ohio that he had just asked, "Congress to authorize the use of America's military, if it proves necessary, to enforce U.N. Security Council demands." I understand why the White House and the incumbent political party do not recognize the significance of "IF NECESSARY" but I cannot understand why journalists don't know either. It's very frustrating.
I remember feeling as if I was in the majority with regard to opposition of a hasty invasion of Iraq during the few months before shock and awe was launched. It turns out, I was, in a majority when "IF NECESSARY" is allowed to be in the equation. Here's a question that we all should have been asking back then.

Should the United States take military action against Iraq fairly soon, or should the United States wait and give the United Nations and weapons inspectors more time?
(Total) (Republicans) (Democrats)
Take military action fairly soon: 35% T……..55% R…….. 23% D
Give weapons inspectors' time: 60% T……..38% R…….. 75% D

The above CBS poll taken at the end of February 2003 suggests why the American people now have the gut feeling we were 'taken for a ride' by President Bush and all who favored an invasion around him. We all have strong feelings there was something wrong with kicking the inspectors out, so hastily, when the President decided it was absolutely necessary to do so.
Necessary? Even though the UN inspectors were in Iraq, doing the best rounds of inspections ever with the most active cooperation from the Baathist regime they had ever seen. They wanted a few more months. It was President Bush who decided, in what he called "the final days of decision" to stop the best intelligence gatherers on Saddam's suspected WMD arsenal from finishing the job. This is not a matter of hindsight having 20/20 vision. The US and UK intelligence by the first week in March was very suspect and that suspicion was very public. The CBS poll should have prevailed but it could not stand up to the prospect of shock and awe that excited the news media that was bored with such anti-invasion common sense. That is too bad for the lives of over 2000 US soldiers.
The Washington Post does not see the credibility gap on why it was necessary to invade.
As witnessed by Mr. Hadley's remark about WMD they don't get it either. Please help us explain it to them. Start by asking President Bush one simple question. Why did we invade Iraq when UN inspectors were doing a pretty good job resolving the WMD crisis? What was the rush? Why was it necessary? -NF Feb ‘06 20060221p0604

So I would assume that when you come home finding your daughter with guy using cocaine and the guy KNOWS you know but when YOU ask
him "have you destroyed all your cocaine?" he will not certify he has destroyed all the cocaine. You continue to let him see your daughter.
Saddam continued to let 576,000 children starve but would NOT certify WMDs were destroyed. GWB, the World believed that any rational person
would IF THERE WERE NO WMDs SIGN the agreement they were certified! Saddam would not! It makes NO difference why he wouldn't sign.. he'd
rather see children starve.

But of course people like you love to see children starve.

People like you would have LOVED to watch what this Iraqi describes as the treatment by Saddam and his sons (Uday) of his own people:

Ahmad was Uday's chief executioner. Last week, as Iraqis celebrated the death of his former boss and his equally savage younger brother Qusay, he nervously revealed a hideous story.
His instructions that day in 1999 were to arrest the two 19-year-olds on the campus of Baghdad's Academy of Fine Arts and deliver them at Radwaniyah. On arrival at the sprawling compound, he was directed to a farm where he found a large cage. Inside, two lions waited. They belonged to Uday. Guards took the two young men from the car and opened the cage door. One of the victims collapsed in terror as they were dragged, screaming and shouting, to meet their fate. Ahmad watched as the students frantically looked for a way of escape. There was none. The lions pounced. 'I saw the head of the first student literally come off his body with the first bite and then had to stand and watch the animals devour the two young men. By the time they were finished there was little left but for the bones and bits and pieces of unwanted flesh,' he recalled last week."
-- Sunday Times, London, July 27, 2003

"Ali would then draw out a pair of pliers and a sharp knife. Gripping the tongue with pliers, he would slice it up with the knife, tossing severed pieces into the street. "'Those punished were too terrified to move, even though they knew I was about to chop off their tongue,' said Ali in his matter-of-fact voice. 'They would just stand there, often praying and calling out for Saddam and Allah to spare them. By then it was too late.

"'I would read them out the verdict and cut off their tongue without any form of anaesthetic. There was always a lot of blood. Some offenders passed out. Others screamed in pain. They would then be given basic medical assistance in an ambulance which would always come with us on such punishment runs. Then they would be thrown in jail.'"

-- Fedayeen Saddam member interviewed in The Sunday Times (London), April 20, 2003
Saddam has reduced his people to abject poverty. He wiped out families, villages, cities and cultures, and drove four million people into exile.
He killed between 100,000 and 200,000 Kurds. He killed as many as 300,000 Shiites in the uprising after the Persian Gulf war. He killed or displaced 200,000 of the 250,000 marsh Arabs who had created a unique, centuries-old culture in the south. He drained the marshes, an environmental treasure, and turned them into a desert.

YEA George Will YOU, et.al. seemingly forget the above tortures which OBVIOUSLY YOU approved as you would LOVE to see Saddam still in power
today doing even more damage and definitely having starved another 1.2 million children!
How totally disgusting and you along with George Will find GWB of the worst decision? Man... If that is the WORST decision helping Iraqis improve their lives by 1,000% keeping from starving 1.2 million children and well read what one Iraq's attitude is he is GLAD GWB made this worst decision!

"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.
"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Rosh10170095

You're a shill. Removing our military presence in the name of playing 1968 left the door open for the resurgence of anti-west islimism.

Is Retired General and former CIA Director David Petraeus a shill. He stated recently on PBS that Obama critics like you cannot know what you are claiming to know. That anti--west Islamism door you say was left open by playing 1968 is a delusion on your part. The entire side of the anti-west barn was blown off when Iraq was invaded and the long standing balance between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia had the fulcrum of Saddam Hussein removed in the way it was removed.

If a rise of anti-west Islamism is you knock against Obama - you sure are not looking at the true cause of the rise at all.

But Petraeus knocks your mindset down with the flick of his little finger. There really is no value to your commentary as you have presented it thus far.

 

[Kosh]

Rosh10170095

You're a shill. Removing our military presence in the name of playing 1968 left the door open for the resurgence of anti-west islimism.

Is Retired General and former CIA Director David Petraeus a shill. He stated recently on PBS that Obama critics like you cannot know what you are claiming to know. That anti--west Islamism door you say was left open by playing 1968 is a delusion on your part. The entire side of the anti-west barn was blown off when Iraq was invaded and the long standing balance between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia had the fulcrum of Saddam Hussein removed in the way it was removed.

If a rise of anti-west Islamism is you knock against Obama - you sure are not looking at the true cause of the rise at all.

But Petraeus knocks your mindset down with the flick of his little finger. There really is no value to your commentary as you have presented it thus far.

Yes we know that the far left believes that the history of Iraq started in 2003..

 

[healthmyths]

Rosh10170095

You're a shill. Removing our military presence in the name of playing 1968 left the door open for the resurgence of anti-west islimism.

Is Retired General and former CIA Director David Petraeus a shill. He stated recently on PBS that Obama critics like you cannot know what you are claiming to know. That anti--west Islamism door you say was left open by playing 1968 is a delusion on your part. The entire side of the anti-west barn was blown off when Iraq was invaded and the long standing balance between Shiite Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia had the fulcrum of Saddam Hussein removed in the way it was removed.

If a rise of anti-west Islamism is you knock against Obama - you sure are not looking at the true cause of the rise at all.

But Petraeus knocks your mindset down with the flick of his little finger. There really is no value to your commentary as you have presented it thus far.

YUP the "fulcrum" was Saddam. No question. He was an indiscriminate killer.
These people are GLAD that fulcrum is gone!
Why don't you ask these people what they think of GWB's worst foreign decision, i.e. the Liberation of Iraq?
"So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it"
The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg put the question to Barham Salih, the former prime minister of Iraqi Kurdistan's regional government and a former deputy prime minister of Iraq's federal government.

"But," he added, "it's important to understand where we started from. ...
Literally hundreds of thousands of Iraqis were sent to mass graves.
Ten years on from the demise of Saddam Hussein, we're still discovering mass graves across Iraq.
And Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein --
the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are better off without Saddam Hussein."
So the Iraq war was, despite all that went wrong, a good thing; the "overwhelming majority" of Iraqis are (and presumably feel) better off because of it; and the fault for all that has gone wrong is ultimately with Iraqis themselves: It's a remarkable point of view to encounter in June 2013.
10 Years After the Fall of Saddam How Do Iraqis Look Back on the War - The Atlantic

Today this is what the Iraq has compared to what George Will and the rest of you Saddam lovers would have liked to have happen!
From 1991 until 1996 per capita GDP never rose above $507. During this period income inequality was a problem as the wealth was concentrated in the hands of Regime loyalists and traders while most Iraqis subsisted on much less income.
Iraq Economic Data 1989-2003 Central Intelligence Agency
OK for the FACT...
After the Liberation of Iraq the per person gross domestic product was $507.

Over 10 years the GDP rose from $507 at a rate of 130% PER YEAR and is NOW $7,100 or a 1,300% increase!

The same anti-American, soldier hating people that destroyed all the efforts of SEATO etc. in Vietnam are the same that tried to destroy GWB's LIBERATION of IRAQ!
These same people are like these traitors totally ignorant as to how the REAL world works as they are so minute in their thinking the WORLD revolves around them they totally forgot what they were saying were words that were KILLING our troops.

Also one minor point. Why do we still have in Europe/Japan 116,260 troops after 70 years???

 

[JakeStarkey]

We know that Petraeus knows what he is talking about and the neo-cons don;t.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Tru 10169021

So now you're a George Will fan?
Who cares? Bush won the Iraq War, Obama lost it.
Obama lost in Afghanistan
Obama's foreign policy is the worst in history.

Not according to this general. But you probably know a lot more than the generals.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/o...-iraq-and-afghanistan.html?smid=fb-share&_r=1

USMB righties tend to clam up with Military people don't relate to their tribal lizard brain instincts. Specifically when a General doesn't .

Having read The Truth About the Wars By DANIEL P. BOLGERNOV. 10, 2014 that you cited I find it should be noticed that the tribal calls for more US front line fighting in Iraq is not matched for completing the mission in Afghanistan. Righties don't like to discuss Afghanistan much I presume because they have a weaker 'lame' augument against Obama there than the lamest arguments they are now making about Iraq. I suppose they were hoping that DAIISH would conquer all of Iraq and then start spreading the caliphate by jumping over Iraq and then into Afghanistan. There fighters are not doing so well these days however. So we shall see where the tribe goes.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

ninj 10169170

Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002 James Love

Was Saddam Hussein in violation of international law and in material breach of all his disarmament obligations with the UNSC in October 2002 when Republicans and Democrats alike voted to authorize war unless Saddam Hussein allowed the inspectors back in a allow that he be verified to be disarmed.

Guess what happened the next month? The UNSC passed with GW Bush's support a new resolution that gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply, Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors in and they went in.

By March 2003 Iraq was said to be cooperating fully by both Chief inspectors and that all of the US and UK intelligence shown to the inspectors turned out to be bogus.. Bush ignored that correct assessment by the UN inspectors and invaded Iraq anyway. Bush made that decision alone. He did not ask the Congress to approve what he decided after March 10, 2003 when Iraq had made strong gains in being verified disarmed.

A few more months and Iraq would have been brought back into full compliance had Bush not single handedly decided to wage war on Iraq instead of exhausting all peaceful means as he continues to claim that he had done.

There is no reason to fault anyone who voted for the AUMF which supported Bush's expressed commitment to disarming Iraq peacefully because Iraq was in violation of international law at the time, and they did not have four good months of inspections ahead of their October vote as Bush had in March when he alone decided to end inspections and commit the US military to the worst foreign policy DECISION in US history.

 

[Kosh]

ninj 10169170

Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002 James Love

Was Saddam Hussein in violation of international law and in material breach of all his disarmament obligations with the UNSC in October 2002 when Republicans and Democrats alike voted to authorize war unless Saddam Hussein allowed the inspectors back in a allow that he be verified to be disarmed.

Guess what happened the next month? The UNSC passed with GW Bush's support a new resolution that gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply, Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors in and they went in.

By March 2003 Iraq was said to be cooperating fully by both Chief inspectors and that all of the US and UK intelligence shown to the inspectors turned out to be bogus.. Bush ignored that correct assessment by the UN inspectors and invaded Iraq anyway. Bush made that decision alone. He did not ask the Congress to approve what he decided after March 10, 2003 when Iraq had made strong gains in being verified disarmed.

A few more months and Iraq would have been brought back into full compliance had Bush not single handedly decided to wage war on Iraq instead of exhausting all peaceful means as he continues to claim that he had done.

There is no reason to fault anyone who voted for the AUMF which supported Bush's expressed commitment to disarming Iraq peacefully because Iraq was in violation of international law at the time, and they did not have four good months of inspections ahead of their October vote as Bush had in March when he alone decided to end inspections and commit the US military to the worst foreign policy DECISION in US history.

And the far left continues to prove that the History of Iraq (according to the far left narrative in play here) did not start before 2003..

 

[healthmyths]

ninj 10169170

Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002 James Love

Was Saddam Hussein in violation of international law and in material breach of all his disarmament obligations with the UNSC in October 2002 when Republicans and Democrats alike voted to authorize war unless Saddam Hussein allowed the inspectors back in a allow that he be verified to be disarmed.

Guess what happened the next month? The UNSC passed with GW Bush's support a new resolution that gave Iraq a final opportunity to comply, Saddam agreed to allow the inspectors in and they went in.

By March 2003 Iraq was said to be cooperating fully by both Chief inspectors and that all of the US and UK intelligence shown to the inspectors turned out to be bogus.. Bush ignored that correct assessment by the UN inspectors and invaded Iraq anyway. Bush made that decision alone. He did not ask the Congress to approve what he decided after March 10, 2003 when Iraq had made strong gains in being verified disarmed.

A few more months and Iraq would have been brought back into full compliance had Bush not single handedly decided to wage war on Iraq instead of exhausting all peaceful means as he continues to claim that he had done.

There is no reason to fault anyone who voted for the AUMF which supported Bush's expressed commitment to disarming Iraq peacefully because Iraq was in violation of international law at the time, and they did not have four good months of inspections ahead of their October vote as Bush had in March when he alone decided to end inspections and commit the US military to the worst foreign policy DECISION in US history.

 

[Redfish]

Who voted to authorize force in Iraq October 2002?
Posted: 12/31/1969 7:00 pm EST Updated: 05/25/2011 12:25 pm EDT

• Share
• Tweet
• Email
• Comment

• 

Which U.S. Senators voted for the resolution that authorized the use of force in Iraq? 29 Democratic US Senators, and all but one (R-RI, Chafee) Republican. The full roll call on H.J.Res. 114, 107th Congress, A joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, is here. The vote count was YEAs 77, NAYs 23.

Below is a list of the Democrat Senators who vote YEA. I wish everyone voted NAY, but note that, in additional to Hillary, a number of very good people voted YEA at the time. Obama did not vote on the resolution, because he was a member of the Illinois State Senate, rather than the U.S. Senate, at the time. Congressman Jim McGovern, a leading critic of the Iraq war, recently discussed Obama's 2004 comments on the Iraq war in this Huffington Post blog, which includes this 2004 Obama quote "I'm not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know." I think that was an honest answer.

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea


looks like the V.P. agreed with GWB as well as Clinton, Reid, etc,, Kerry too.

147 Democrats voted against the Iraq war authorization. How many Republicans voted against it?

doesn't matter. it was a bi-partisan vote. Both parties voted to authorize and fund that fiasco, then as we were about to accomplish something, obama pulled the plug. Now we have ISIS taking over the entire region. Ever since WW2, our foreign policy has been a disaster.

 

[healthmyths]

Well Saddam didn't agree with you...

Piro, in his first television interview, relays this and other revelations to 60 Minutes correspondent Scott Pelley this Sunday, Jan. 27,2008, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.
Piro spent almost seven months debriefing Saddam in a plan based on winning his confidence by convincing him that Piro was an important envoy who answered to President Bush. This and being Saddam's sole provider of items like writing materials and toiletries made the toppled Iraqi president open up to Piro, a Lebanese-American and one of the few FBI agents who spoke Arabic.

"He told me he initially miscalculated... President Bush?s intentions. He thought the United States would retaliate with the same type of attack as we did in 1998...a four-day aerial attack," says Piro. "He survived that one and he was willing to accept that type of attack." "He didn't believe the U.S. would invade?" asks Pelley, "No, not initially," answers Piro.

Saddam still wouldn't admit he had no weapons of mass destruction, even when it was obvious there would be military action against him because of the perception he did. Because, says Piro,
"For him, it was critical that he was seen as still the strong, defiant Saddam. He thought that [faking having the weapons] would prevent the Iranians from reinvading Iraq," he tells Pelley.

He also intended and had the wherewithal to restart the weapons program. "[Saddam] still had the engineers. The folks that he needed to reconstitute his program are still there," says Piro. "He wanted to pursue all of WMDs to reconstitute his entire WMD program." This included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, Piro says.

Interview with FBI agent who interrogated Saddam Archive - AnandTech Forums

 

[Redfish]

Will has never understood Iraq....that's okay, he doesn't know much about baseball either. ABC threw him out because he's like Peggy Noonan wearing a bow tie...self-absorbed and boring. Few leftists will ever get over Iraq which is weird because none of them had the guts to go there, right or wrong. Same as our era dirtbags...they wanted Vietnam lost to prove everybody else wrong. It's what they were taught by fellow travelers in the public schools....if we ever intend this Nation to be anything but a sodomite sewer again, the schools must be closed, boarded up, every teacher and admin fired...have a national debate about what we want future children taught and by whom before those schools reopen the doors.

we are of the same generation, 58,000 americans died in viet nam for NOTHING. When will we learn that lesson?

For nothing? If you're a Viet Vet I feel sorry for you for saying that. If not, STFU. What could have been accomplished will never be known because we weren't allowed to chase Nathan home after Tet when we could have. I believe Thailand was saved. I believe the dominoes stopped falling thanks to us....I believe we learned that conscripting citizens wouldn't work anymore. I believe we got better at fighting asymmetrical warfare there from what we first learned fighting the japs in the Pacific. I believe we set the stage for the chinese and Viets to hate each other's guts for another century. I believe we groomed an officer corps that went on to win Desert Storm while the russians wathced their client state disassembled without a peep out of them. I believe that our time there influenced the Viets toward our culture...they're great gamblers and love to have their own businesses, Maybe we did win the Vietnam War.....like everything in the orient....things sometimes take a couple generations to stick.

Jesus you are indeed insane.

Jesus is not insane, but bullkurtz is clearly insane if he thinks we accomplished anything in viet nam. We lost 58,000 good americans and billions of dollars for NOTHING.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

Here are the Democratic Senators who voted YEA on October 2002.

Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carnahan (D-MO), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Cleland (D-GA), Yea
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Torricelli (D-NJ), Yea

Good for them. Saddam Hussein had not allowed UN inspections for 4 years and was in violation of international law that was distantly but indeed related to the 9'11 attacks by the potential nexus of WMD being provided to terrorists. There was a threat posed by Hussein's intransigence in Oct 2002, But the threat was eliminated when Hussein let the inspectors back in under UNSC Res 1441.

Voting yea on the AUMF pushed Hussein to resume inspections so war was not required.

 

[JakeStarkey]

This. "By March 2003 Iraq was said to be cooperating fully by both Chief inspectors and that all of the US and UK intelligence shown to the inspectors turned out to be bogus.. Bush ignored that correct assessment by the UN inspectors and invaded Iraq anyway. Bush made that decision alone."

Nothing the neo-cons say can change the fact that Bush alone is responsible for committing us to a foreign policy debacle worse than Vietnam.

 

[zeke]

We lost 58,000 good americans and billions of dollars for NOTHING.

Hey at least in Iraq we didn't lose as many men and women. Cost was higher. And it was all for nothing. Just like Vietnam. SO much for learning from past mistakes.

 

[Redfish]

This. "By March 2003 Iraq was said to be cooperating fully by both Chief inspectors and that all of the US and UK intelligence shown to the inspectors turned out to be bogus.. Bush ignored that correct assessment by the UN inspectors and invaded Iraq anyway. Bush made that decision alone."

Nothing the neo-cons say can change the fact that Bush alone is responsible for committing us to a foreign policy debacle worse than Vietnam.

Bullshit, congress authorized and funded it. No president could do that on his own. We agree that it was a stupid waste of lives and money, but they all have blood on their hands. Do I need to post the quotes of prominent dems who supported it?

For the record, Vietnam was much worse in terms of dead americans than Iraq.