Feinstein: Iraq Attack Would Be 'Terrible Mistake'

Newsmax ^ | 6/3/02 | Carl Limbacher and Crew

[NormsRevenge]

Feinstein: Iraq Attack Would Be 'Terrible Mistake'

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said Sunday that it would be a "terrible mistake" for the U.S. to attack Iraq unless the Bush administration can produce evidence that Saddam Hussein was linked to last September's al-Qaeda attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.

"I think it would be a terrible mistake for the United States unilaterally to attack Iraq and to do so without any congressional authorization," the California Democrat told CNN's "Late Edition."

"The authorization we gave the president with respect to 9-11 was very precisely crafted to connect the use of force with those who either perpetrated or were connected to 9-11.

"Iraq was not," insisted Feinstein. "And therefore, I think a pre-emptory attack, without full debate in the Congress, would be a terrible mistake.

"I'm probably more concerned by [a prospective attack on Iraq] than by anything else," she added. "Because if you do this, and you leave unsettled the Israeli-Palestinian crisis, which is a real full-blown crisis, I think you turn the whole Muslim Middle East world against the United States."

Feinstein did not say what the U.S. should do if, as widely expected, Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear weapons within the next three years.

[NormsRevenge]

Feinstein did not say what the U.S. should do if, as widely expected, Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear weapons within the next three years.

This woman is Insane and needs a long vacation in China with her husband so they can visit all their investments. Politics has become too much for this scandalous wench.

[Dog Gone]

She'd be the first to criticize Bush if Saddam uses WMD or supplies them to terrorists.

"Why didn't you attack Iraq when you knew all along that Saddam was up to no good?"

[Boxsford]

That's right! Liberals talk out of both sides of their mouth. They're such idiots.

[Argus]

"The authorization we gave the president with respect to 9-11 was very precisely crafted to connect the use of force with those who either perpetrated or were connected to 9-11. "Iraq was not," insisted Feinstein. "And therefore, I think a pre-emptory attack, without full debate in the Congress, would be a terrible mistake.

Translation: We Democrats who control the Senate by one turncoat vote want a veto on any action Bush might take against Iraq, and a lot of talk about it, so that we can take credit for giving such good advice and consent if it's a success, and blame Bush for ignoring our warnings against it if it's a failure.

[Egregious Philbin]

Feinstein did not say what the U.S. should do if, as widely expected, Saddam Hussein obtains nuclear weapons within the next three years.

Politicians, I swear. What would YOU do, Dianne? Though I think it would be a terrible mistake to attack Iraq right now, she offers no alternate plan. Not constructive criticism. We have to do something about Iraq. Taking out Saddam would be the best plan, but will probably take time. We haven't attacked Iraq yet, perhaps George knows something we don't?

[Beenliedto]

That's right! LiberalsPoliticians talk out of both sides of their mouth. They're such idiots.

Just trying to keep things in their proper perspective.

[wheezer]

I despise Feinstein as much as the next person, but calling for congressional debate prior to an American attack against Iraq sounds like a constitutionaly responsible approach to me.

[The Vast Right Wing]

I actually think the last thing the liberals want is to debate going to war. If that were to happen, say just before the november election, it would put the libs between a rock and a hard place. You know that they don't want to vote for war, they are libs and believe if we talk enough with the terrorist, they'll quite terrorizing innocents. But the reality is that those that vote against taking down Saddam would be thrown out of office.

[Dimensio]

I'm not going to pretend to be behind Feinstein all the way here, but sometimes FReepers respond to calls from politicians to abstain from military action as though it's an act of high treason.

There are serious ramifications to the US suddenly up and invading Iraq. You'll have the UN likely pissed off at us, a number of Arabic countries with whom we are allied pissed off at us and you'll be giving Islamic terrorists an even greater incentive to go nuts in the US.

Yes, Iraq probably deserves it. Yes, a lot of people don't like the UN and don't care what the UN feels -- but whether or not the US should be involved with the UN is irrelevant, we are involved and actions that upset them should be considered because we don't want a lot of other member countries getting pissed off at us. Yes, it's possible that we should cut ties to Arabic countries and find domestic alternatives to the resources they provide (like oil), but it's not a simple matter of dropping drills and pumping oil even after you get through the beurocratic nightmare to arrange it all. I certainly doubt that people are willing to put up with even greater threat of terrorist attacks in the US (though some might be quite willing to give up their personal liberties in the name of the additional "security" that promises to prevent it) because we suspect (well, we "know" but unfortunately cannot currently prove) that Saddam has been up to things that he shouldn't be doing.

Sorry if my rant seems a little broken and incoherent. I was saving it up for the next nutcase who thinks that nuking Mecca would be a "great" idea, but I had to let it out now. There's definitely more incentive to yell at the "nuke Mecca" proponents, but I think that some of the same arguments against it do apply to some extent here.

[ASA Vet]

incentive to yell at the "nuke Mecca" proponents

Two thoughts on that concept.

1. Mecca is not a military or economic target. Nuking Mecca would be a military waste of the weapon system.

2. The "Nuke Mecca" proponents are just trying to demonstrate that theirs is a "peaceful" religion.

[Rick.Donaldson]

Some how it makes sense... that if she said something is "bad" it must really be "good". Just can't get away from that logic!

[Tijeras_Slim]

calling for congressional debate prior to an American attack against Iraq sounds like a constitutionaly responsible approach to me

It might be if there was debate instead of political posturing and the mindless repetition of tired cliches.

[NormsRevenge]

There are serious ramifications to the US suddenly up and invading Iraq. You'll have the UN likely pissed off at us, a number of Arabic countries with whom we are allied pissed off at us and you'll be giving Islamic terrorists an even greater incentive to go nuts in the US.

Toughky ShiitteSki .. Skrew the UN and the herd of mad a$$holes that has crept on top of US..By all means , Rant On..

Oh and, BY the Way .. I would Never Nuke MeKKah "T'wouldn't Be Prudent" ..

No... Better to Love Your Enemies and Keep Em Close then At Arm's Distance ..(That's What The CIA and FBI and INS Policies have been for years It would seem.)

[wheezer]

It might be if there was debate instead of political posturing and the mindless repetition of tired cliches.

I have no doubt the debate would degenerate into the grandstanding posture-fest you suggest, but I would like a yeah or nay vote from every manicured nancy on the hill prior to sending our guys into Iraq and very possibly getting WW III going at full force.

[Tijeras_Slim]

That would be nice.

[The Great Satan]

Relax, Diane. There is no way we are going to attack Saddam Hussein. You don't attack someone who has a knife at your throat. Wouldn't be prudent, dontcha know?

[ohioman]

Who gives a shit. I am tired of hearing from wimpy Americans who do not realize that justified violence CAN and DOES solve problems. We should win the war. But, we won't win the war by listening to the pacifist elements in our society. Bin Ladin and his ilk are counting on these wimps.

[pt17]

but calling for congressional debate prior to an American attack against Iraq sounds like a constitutionaly responsible approach to me.

OK, but how do you weight this responsibility against the American lives that would be lost by notifying Iraq of your intentions and plans in a congressional debate (a.k.a. political posturing)? Closed door sessions with no leaks?

[wheezer]

Closed door sessions with no leaks?

LOL...as if that's possible!

Well, we did mange to have an on the record debate and vote prior to Gulf War I.

[pt17]

Well, we did mange to have an on the record debate and vote prior to Gulf War I

A congressional debate is good thing; however, (1) congress seems more interested in face time and partisanship than serious debate and (2) I'd rather the folks in Iraq not have any inkling about the content of the debate for all the obvious reasons.