by Averroes
And that is what you heard when the important vote was taken to authorize the president to take military action against Iraq.
Why did Schumer vote this way?
Chris Wallace played a clip of Schumer justifying his vote in October, 2002.
[C. WALLACE: As we noted, the Democrats forced the Senate into a closed session this week to try to force or get the Senate Intelligence Committee to investigate the manipulation, the exaggeration of pre-war intelligence by the White House.
I want to play a clip from your statement back in October of 2002 when you voted to authorize the use of force. Here it is.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SCHUMER: It is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and future potential support for terrorist acts and organizations that make him a danger to the people of the united states.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
C. WALLACE: Senator, you read the intelligence and you came to the same
conclusion the president did.
SCHUMER: Yes. The bottom line is I wasn't as sure of it as the president was, but I believe in a post-9/11 world, Chris, that the president does need latitude to keep our national security strong.]
What can we learn from this? One thing is that Schumer spoke in terms that were quite forceful. He spoke as if he was quite sure of what he said. He offered no caveats. He agrees that he saw the same intelligence the president did, and came to the same conclusion.
But he says that, despite his forceful statement, he wasn't as sure as the president. What does this mean?
Certainly, as some have argued, if the president is guilty of stating things he was unsure about as if he were sure (although not one person has ever offered any evidence to back this up), then Schumer here admits the same crime.
Can we safely say that Schumer misled us into war?
I wouldn't argue that he did. But some who have damned the president for speaking in terms of certainty are here bound by logic and morality to hold Schumer even more guilty. By his own words.
Let the squirming begin.
Secondly, i would like to offer this post and response, not for the truth of either, but for another purpose. This comes from a board concerned mostly with first amendment issues, where the conversation often turns to when a cat o' nine tails is prefered over a riding crop. The board host has run for local office as a Libertarian, also the affiliation of some of the members of the board. Most of the members are militantly antiBush. There is even one of those "you don't have to pay taxes if you read the law" nuts. All these peoople get along when the subject is, say, leather, or the last rotten law to regulate pornography. But spewing hatred for Bush has become an ever larger part of the daily fair here.
The rabid antiBusites are much like those on Spinsanity and here, except, as you will see (for the responder is typical), they are more honest. They make no pretenses to objectivity. In a way, it is refreshing. They remind me of the kind of place that Winston likes to link to, sites which consider facts inconvenient.
The first post is in reponse to someone who stated that if Bush hadn't stolen the election from Gore, we never would have invaded iraq. Enjoy.......
------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter A: I doubt Gore would have invaded Iraq without Chirac's
permission, but I got this recently (and I wish it had direct citations to back up the quotes) and here is what prominent Dems had to say BEFORE the war...
Bill Clinton: "If Saddam rejects peace, and we have to use force, our purpose is clear: We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State: "We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and the security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Advisor and Classified Document Thief: "[Saddam will] use those weapons of mass destruction again as he has ten times since 1983."
Harry Reid: "The problem is not nuclear testing; it is nuclear weapons. ... The number of Third World countries with nuclear capabilities seems to grow daily. Saddam Hussein's near success with developing a nuclear weapon should be an eye-opener for us all."
Dick Durbin: "One of the most compelling threats we in this country face today is the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Threat assessments regularly warn us of the possibility that...Iraq...may acquire or develop nuclear weapons."
John Kerry: "If you don't believe...Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn't vote for me."
John Edwards: "Serving on the Intelligence Committee and seeing day after day, week after week, briefings on Saddam's weapons of mass destruction and his plans on using those weapons, he cannot be allowed to have nuclear weapons, it's just that simple. The whole world changes if Saddam ever has nuclear weapons."
Nancy Pelosi: "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology, which is a threat to countries in the region, and he has made a mockery of the weapons-inspection process."
Sens. Levin, Lieberman, Lautenberg, Dodd, Kerrey, Feinstein, Mikulski, Daschle, Breaux, Johnson, Inouye, Landrieu, Ford and Kerryin a letter to Bill Clinton:
"We urge you, after consulting with Congress and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions, including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
After President Bush was sworn into office in 2001,
his administration was handed eight years worth of
intelligence analysis and policy positions from the
Clinton years -- you know, the years of appeasement when Saddam was tolerated, when opportunities to take
out Osama bin Ladin were ignored, as was the presence of an al-Qa'ida terrorist cell in the U.S. -- which reared its head on 9/11.
In the weeks prior to the invasion of Iraq, Democrats, who had access to the same intelligence used by the Bush administration (much of which was compiled under the Clinton administration), were clear about the threat of Iraq's WMD capability.
Ted Kennedy: "We have known for many years that Saddam
Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
John Kerry: "I will be voting to give the president of
the U.S. the authority to use force if necessary to
disarm Saddam because I believe that a deadly arsenal
of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real
and grave threat to our security. ... Without question
we need to disarm Saddam Hussein."
Hillary Clinton: "In the four years since the
inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam
Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and
biological weapons stock. His missile-delivery
capability, his nuclear program. He has also given
aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists including
al-Qa'ida members. It is clear, however, that if left
unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase
his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare
and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Carl Levin: "We begin with a common belief that Saddam
Hussein...is building weapons of mass destruction and
the means of delivering them."
Al Gore: "We know that he has stored nuclear supplies,
secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons
throughout his country."
Bob Graham: "We are in possession of what I think to
be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has and has
had for a number of years a developing capacity for
the production and storage of weapons of mass
destruction."
-------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter B:
I doubt Gore would have invaded Iraq without Chirac's
permission, but I got this recently (and I wish it had direct citations to back up the quotes) and here is what prominent Dems had to say BEFORE the war...
[snip]
And all of those statements were based on the lies fed to them by this
administration.
Sure Sadam was evil. He was also not a threat to the US. We had defanged him a long time ago. Any time he got uppity we bombed him and killed a few hundred more innocent people.
But those who have an emotional stake in this administration will say anything to cover up for their lies.
That means you.
By supporting this administration you are directly supporting torture and murder. Making excuses of how the Democrats did this or that does notexcuse that fact NOW because now we know better. We know that thisadministration is setting up secret prisons around the world. We know that they are using chemical weapons.[!] We know they are using torture as aroutine method of extracting confessions.
These people are evil and you are evil for supporting them.
Recent Comments