Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Iraq war will cost Bush his presidency
Thestar ^ | 03/21/04 | Senator Ted Kennedy

Posted on 03/20/2004 11:18:59 PM PST by Pikamax

Iraq war will cost Bush his presidency America went to war in a dishonest way that alienated key allies, divided and weakened the U.N., outraged the world community, m

A year ago, the United States went to war in Iraq because President George W. Bush and his administration convinced Congress and the country that Saddam Hussein was an urgent threat that required immediate military action.

The nation has paid a high price for that decision ever since.

The case for war was based on two key claims: that Saddam was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons, and that he had close ties to the Al Qaeda terrorists responsible for the atrocities of Sept. 11. Both claims proved to be demonstrably false. We can only speculate about the real reasons we went to war.

What is known, however, is that, at the time the decision was being made in the summer of 2002, Osama bin Laden was still at large, the war against Al Qaeda in Afghanistan had entered a troubled phase, our economy was reeling from recession, the president's approval rating in the Gallup Poll had declined from its peak of 90 per cent after Sept. 11 to 63 per cent by Labour Day 2002, and control of the Senate and House was at stake in the critical congressional elections in November that year.

Karl Rove, the president's political adviser, made it clear early on that the war on terrorism could be used politically.

At a Republican National Committee meeting on Jan. 19, 2002, he said, "We can go to the country on this issue, because they trust the Republican party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might and thereby protecting America."

The decision on Iraq was made in August, but the administration announced it in September. As White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. explained on Sept. 7, "From a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August."

For maximum political impact, the administration insisted that Congress vote to authorize the war before adjourning that year for the November elections.

The president, as principal cheerleader for war, said on Sept. 25, 2002, "You can't distinguish between Al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror." On Oct. 2, he said the issue "is a threat of unique urgency."

On Oct. 7, he said, "facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof — the smoking gun — that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

On Oct. 10, the House approved the war resolution 296 to 133; the Senate approved it 77 to 23 the next day. Republicans voted overwhelmingly to authorize the war; the Democrats were deeply divided. A mushroom cloud. A threat of unique urgency. No distinction between Hussein and Al Qaeda. These were the administration's reasons, and none of them was true.

The Republicans prevailed in the 2002 elections and regained control of Congress, but it was a hollow victory. Presumably, the administration felt it could not persuade Congress to authorize the war on the basis of chemical and biological weapons alone, since Saddam's arsenal had been successfully contained for years.

The case for war depended on hyping the nuclear threat and ties to Al Qaeda. In fact, the intelligence community had poured cold water on both the nuclear threat and the Al Qaeda link before the war began.

CIA Director George Tenet stated in a speech last month that the agency told the administration before the war, "Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon, and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009."

The ties to Al Qaeda were just as dubious. Before the war, the intelligence community found no co-operative relationship between Saddam and Al Qaeda. It had low confidence even in the prospect that, in desperation, Saddam might share chemical and biological weapons with Al Qaeda.

In February, 2003, FBI investigators said they had been baffled by the administration's insistence on a solid link. "We just don't think it's there," said one official.

The truth was there to see, but the administration refused to see it.

America went to war in a dishonest way that alienated key allies, divided and weakened the United Nations, outraged the world community, made us more hated in the world and made the war on terrorism more difficult to win. The decision on war or peace is the most important decision any president ever makes.

The prime minister of Spain paid a high price last Sunday for supporting us in the war, and for misleading the Spanish people. President Bush is likely to pay a similar high price in November.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ted Kennedy is a veteran Massachusetts Democrat.


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: clueless; fantasy; kennedy; splash; tedkennedy; wishfulthinking
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last
To: Power Engineer
Original JFK, and welcome!
41 posted on 03/21/2004 12:11:48 AM PST by Solamente
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Iraq war will cost Bush his presidency America went to war in a dishonest way that alienated key allies, divided and weakened the U.N., outraged the world community,

Like Bush said yesterday, he's campaigning in the USA and elected by the American citizens, not the "alienated allies, divided and weakend UN and outraged world."

42 posted on 03/21/2004 12:18:49 AM PST by dawn53
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I dunno about nuance. I couldn't get past Old Ted's first paragraph before I was overcome with nausea.
43 posted on 03/21/2004 12:20:18 AM PST by Jim Robinson (warning: some parts of this post may be plagiarized - some parts may be sarcasm - no parts edible)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson
lol
44 posted on 03/21/2004 12:21:57 AM PST by Texasforever (I am all flamed out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Note that this was published as an editorial in the Toronto Star. Apparently not even the Boston Globe would touch it.
45 posted on 03/21/2004 12:22:17 AM PST by Grut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texasforever
I always seem to be stepping in nuance with my waffle stompers. Have to use a pocket knife or a stick to scrape it off.
46 posted on 03/21/2004 12:24:29 AM PST by AF68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: AF68
Yeah but in Massachusetts they use it as salad dressing. Hey, I just found a new home business idea.
47 posted on 03/21/2004 12:27:08 AM PST by Texasforever (I am all flamed out.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
It interesting that ol' Ted had to go to Canada (Toronto Star) to get this puke piece published!
48 posted on 03/21/2004 12:50:22 AM PST by Jackson Brown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed."

-- Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002
49 posted on 03/21/2004 1:05:46 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer (The democRATS are near the tipping point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Since when did anybody take Red Ted seriously? Is it
supposed to be an age=wisdom thing?

His brain turned into a raisin about 20 year ago.
50 posted on 03/21/2004 1:07:48 AM PST by Finalapproach29er (" Permitting homosexuality didn't work out very well for the Roman Empire")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jackson Brown
It interesting that ol' Ted had to go to Canada (Toronto Star) to get this puke piece published!

Truly.

51 posted on 03/21/2004 1:08:47 AM PST by onyx (Kerry' s a Veteran, but so were Lee Harvey Oswald, Timothy McVeigh and Benedict Arnold.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
What an embarrASS-MENt both Senators from Mass. are. But Ted is truly off-his-rocker. How can the people of Mass stand it?
52 posted on 03/21/2004 1:21:26 AM PST by StrictTime ("This is all very vexing. I'm quite put out!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Iraq war will cost Bush his presidency

Not if they count the absentee military ballots this time....

53 posted on 03/21/2004 1:27:04 AM PST by lorrainer ("I don't do nuance." --GW Bush)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Did anyone see the new cartoon series "This Just In", on the "Spike-TV" channel? The first show of the series this week absolutely *roasted* Ted Kennedy.

The show is great -- hilariously funny, topical, politically oriented, sharp in its satire, and *conservatively* oriented.

The Ted Kennedy jokes were too many to list them all, but one of the funniest is when one of the characters ends up having to drive Ted Kennedy somewhere (long story).

He's driving, and then you can hear him thinking, "...I'm in a car... with a drunk Ted Kennedy... we're driving over a bridge... [scene cuts to car driving over bridge] ...over water... [scene pulls out to show bridge over a river] .... .... [scene goes for a close-up on the driver] ... oh, <bleep>!"

[scene cuts to car splashing down into river]

The character's seatbelt gets stuck and he can't get out of the submerged car, but Ted Kennedy pries it loose with a bottle opener he always has with him(!).

Later they're having a press conference, and the (conservative) character says, "I can't believe I'm standing here telling you that Ted Kennedy saved me from a submerged car." Ted Kennedy butts in, "I had to, there were witnesses this time."

54 posted on 03/21/2004 2:42:32 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zarf
*applause* Perfect.
55 posted on 03/21/2004 2:43:26 AM PST by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
Pudge Kennedy has water on the brain.
56 posted on 03/21/2004 2:51:25 AM PST by KeyWest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
I see you had the same thought I did. Have you noticed how the democrats keep saying that we should have "gone after" bin Laden and Al Qaeda rather than Iraq? Senator Graham started this when he was campaigning for the nomination.

At the time I thought that as someone on the Intelligence Committee he was privy to information about the possibility of attack, and was hoping we wouldn't foil one so that he could win on an "I told you so" platform.

I am absolutely convinced that the Rats have a plan, complete with talking points, should we be hit again.

In fact, I think there are some who would be happy to initiate an attack themselves.

57 posted on 03/21/2004 3:05:32 AM PST by Miss Marple
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: StrictTime
...and my thoughts were, who are the people of massawhosits, who keep re-electing this, this, oh fill in the blank. If all they can put at the bottom of the pond, oops, article are the words veteran Massachusetts Democrat, surely it is time for ol teddy, to retire at our expense, or is it too much fun watching?
58 posted on 03/21/2004 3:41:54 AM PST by wita (truthspeaks@freerepublic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
I hate this "alcohol preserved", bulbous, sweat-soaked, canker sore infested, fat-assed spittoon of a slimy murderous bubble-butted pie faced liberal piece of human refuse, that is preceded in life by a reputation that is lower that Whale poop!

It is a damned shame that dueling fell out of favor in the US Senate. What we need is a little payback ala Burr vs. Hamilton! On second thought, I'm not sure our environment could handle the excess "greenhouse gasses" that would be expelled upon breech of this septic scumbag!

One day I'll tell you how I really feel about this guy...

LLS

59 posted on 03/21/2004 3:45:39 AM PST by LibLieSlayer (We point out Kerry's record and the facts, and they just THINK it's attack politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikamax
the Bibulent One speaks...
60 posted on 03/21/2004 3:47:12 AM PST by RobFromGa (Bring on Hillary, the Electorate is Ready For Her...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson