Posted on 03/16/2004 12:08:26 AM PST by MarvntheMartian
Ever since Congress voted for the resolution to use military force in Iraq (Public Law 107-243), I've watched in amazement the steady stream of Democratic Congresspeople who voted for this resolution stepping forward vomiting forth rhetorical allegations claiming there was a concerted effort by George W. Bush and those within his administration to intentionally deceive and mislead them into voting for this resolution.
Well, I believe the concerted effort to "deceive" and "mislead" is among those rank and file Democratic Congresspeople, who voted for this war with Iraq, in attempting to lead us to believe they were unwitting, uneducated innocent pawns being led around on a leash by their King and Master, George W. Bush.
For example. Those Democratic Congresspeople who voted to go to war with Iraq would like us to believe their decision to approve Public Law 107-243 was exclusively motivated by what George W. Bush and those in his administration TOLD them, as opposed to being motivated by knowledge they were already aware of, gained by America's approximate 13 year history of conflict with Iraq. Does anyone actually believe this? Is there anyone who actually believes that those Democratic Congresspeople who approved this war - especially those Democrats who've been in Congress for a considerably long time and have been involved in the 13 year process of dealing with the problems posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq - exclusively based their entire decision on "what George W. Bush TOLD them?"
Another example I'd like readers to focus on, is the following. Certain Democratic Congresspeople allege, and would like us to believe, that they weren't afforded the luxury of viewing information contained in what have been termed "caveats" and "qualifiers." Question: Why didn't those Democratic members of Congress, especailly those serving on intelligence committees - which consist of Democrats as well as Republicans - request these "caveats" and "qualifiers" before approving the use of military force in Iraq?
Would we be mistaken to believe that if "caveats" and "qualifiers" are deemed important and essential pieces of the intelligence gathering process today, more than likely, they've been deemed important and essential in the past and these Democratic Congresspeople were well aware that "caveats" and "qualifiers" WERE important and essential pieces of information they SHOULD be looking at to make an informed and confident decision to commit America's Armed Forces in harm's way?
Although, it isn't necessarily explicitly clarified in the U.S. Constitution exactly what access Congress had to intelligence information - especially classified information - it is my belief it has been generally accepted that Congressional members - especially those serving on intelligence committees - have access to any information relevant to any particular given task they're charged with, since afterall, they are responsible for declaring war (or the equivalent thereof), appropriating funds for intelligence and military operations, etc. So, why did they fail to request this type of information? If "caveats" and "qualifiers" were necessary in the past, I think we can feel confident in saying Congressional members should have known this, and SHOULD have requested these items. And, if they HAVEN'T ever been considered important in the past, why the sudden importance placed on "caveats" and "qualifiers"...and, was anyone necessarily obliged to provide these "caveats" and "qualifiers?"
So, in conclusion...and, this is something the media ignores and seems to avoid like the plague...while we're trying to lay blame upon the White House, the CIA, Iraqi defectors, etc. - exactly what, and how much, blame can be placed upon Congress for approving the necessary resolution to commit our Armed Forces to military action?
Afterall, weren't...and, aren't, the reasons behind so vehemently defending the philosophy of Congress being the only entity with the authority to declare war and, Congress being a system of "checks and balances," to prevent EXACTLY what Democrats allege has happened, from happening? If, indeed, there were any failures, it looks like not only was there an intelligence failure, it also seems there was a "checks and balances" failure by the U.S. Congress, as well.
As a little side note, I would like to remind readers that, because I've had some argument over this in the past, at the time Public Law 107-243 was approved, Republicans controlled the U.S. House of Representatives and Democrats controlled the Senate. So, had there been a solid partisan effort by certain Democratic Congresspeople to refrain from allowing this resolution to pass through the doors of the Senate until a thorough and exhaustive debate had been conducted in regard to the issue of sending military forces to Iraq, this resolution would have never reached George W. Bush's desk for his signature.
There are a lot of stupid people in this country that will believe exactly that just like they believe the covers of the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer. Unfortunately, their vote counts just as much as mine does.
There are a lot of stupid people in this country that will believe exactly that just like they believe the covers of the Weekly World News or the National Enquirer. Unfortunately, their vote counts just as much as mine does.
The point, surely, is that it has been known for many years that Saddam had a WMD program, and had violated the terms of the armistice by preventing us from being assured that that program was no longer a threat.Whether or not that program was in fact a threat, Bush had to act (or not act) on the information available, some of it knowledge of what he did not know then and is not absolutely certain of even after Saddam "allowed" inspection by the U.S. Army and Marines. Including whether or not Saddam's known anthrax program (and Saddam's known motives) was the source of the otherwise close-to-inexplicable anthrax attack concurrent with the 911 attacks.
If Saddam's manipulations and violations caused Bush to err in thinking that WMD and precursors would be found in Iraq (and in ordering that the troops wear highly uncomfortable protective gear in the heat of the desert springtime), then the joke is on the man who was deposed and was found hiding in a hole in the ground, handcuffed, and incarcerated. In such case Bush rues the loss of 500 Americans in Iraq (and more who were wounded, some grieviously). But as a matter of statecraft he has no choice but to shrug and tell Saddam that he gets the joke - but Saddam still is in prision awaiting trial on mass-murder charges and Bush is the hero of Free Iraq. And we as voters must view it from that same rueful but defiant perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.