Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Elphaba · 11-16-2005, 05:16 PM

But, Pan. You need WMD to change any opinions around here.

This was a heartening article that I read today. The concerted effort on the part of Bush and some members of his administration to paint Democrats as aiding the enemy, was smacked down Chuck Hagel today. I have great respect for the man because he has walked the talk, having served in Viet Nam.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/111605F.shtml

Quote:

Hagel Defends Criticisms of Iraq Policy
By Glenn Kessler
The Washington Post

Wednesday 16 November 2005

Administration calls statements by Democrats harmful to war effort, troops.

Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) strongly criticized yesterday the White House's new line of attack against critics of its Iraq policy, saying that "the Bush administration must understand that each American has a right to question our policies in Iraq and should not be demonized for disagreeing with them."

With President Bush leading the charge, administration officials have lashed out at Democrats who have accused the administration of manipulating intelligence to justify the war in Iraq. Bush has suggested that critics are hurting the war effort, telling US troops in Alaska on Monday that critics "are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. And that's irresponsible."

Hagel, a Vietnam War veteran and a potential presidential candidate in 2008, countered in a speech to the Council of Foreign Relations that the Vietnam War "was a national tragedy partly because members of Congress failed their country, remained silent and lacked the courage to challenge the administrations in power until it was too late."

"To question your government is not unpatriotic - to not question your government is unpatriotic," Hagel said, arguing that 58,000 troops died in Vietnam because of silence by political leaders. "America owes its men and women in uniform a policy worthy of their sacrifices."

Hagel said Democrats have an obligation to be constructive in their criticism, but he accused the administration of "dividing the country" with its rhetorical tactics.

Hagel supported the 2002 resolution to authorize military action in Iraq, but he has emerged as a strong skeptic of the Bush administration's handling of the war. In his speech, he called for a regional security conference to help invest Iraq's neighbors in the effort to stabilize the country.

At one point, while answering a question from the audience about Syria, Hagel suggested that the Middle East is worse off after the invasion because the administration failed to anticipate the consequences of removing Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "You could probably argue it is worse in many ways in the Middle East because of consequences and ripple effects," he said.

Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld joined other administration officials yesterday in attacking critics of the Iraq war for attempting to "rewrite" history, warning that setting an arbitrary deadline for withdrawing US troops could "give terrorists the false hope that if they can simply hold on long enough, that they can outlast us."

At the same time, Rumsfeld acknowledged what he called honest mistakes in the Bush administration's prewar intelligence on Iraq. "There's no doubt in my mind that people made honest mistakes in . . . the pieces of that intelligence that were presented at the United Nations," he said at a news briefing.

Rumsfeld described an evolution of US policy toward Iraq embraced by Democrats and Republicans. He read several quotes from 1998 from then-President Bill Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright and national security adviser Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger. They predicted that Hussein, if unchecked, would again use weapons of mass destruction.

However, many of the comments cited by Rumsfeld were used to justify continued sanctions on Iraq, not to invade it. Moreover, the Clinton administration officials did not cite the problematic intelligence that formed the core of the Bush administration's case for an invasion, such as allegations that Iraq sought uranium in Africa and tried to obtain aluminum tubes as part of a resurgent nuclear program.

Rumsfeld also pointed to congressional actions in 1998 and 2002 calling for Hussein's removal. But the 1998 law, signed by Clinton, said "nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to use of United States Armed Forces" to implement it.

In the same link, is an article that suggests continuing this line of attack against Iraq war critics may have a negative influence on Republican moderate and independent voters. That is a huge risk with the upcoming midterm elections.

Quote:

Bush Risks Alienating GOP over Iraq War
By Tom Raum
The Associated Press

Wednesday 16 November 2005

Washington - President Bush's efforts to paint Democrats as hypocrites for criticizing the Iraq war after they once warned that Saddam Hussein was a grave threat could backfire on Republicans.

[/b]Polls show marked declines in support for the war, notably among moderate Republicans, especially Republican women, and independents - voting blocs that the GOP needs to woo or keep in their camp.[/b]

If Bush castigates Democrats for changing their minds on the war, he might wind up alienating Republicans who have done so, too.

The administration has been engaging in a rhetorical high-wire act in its efforts to defend its use of prewar intelligence - so much that some analysts have likened it to President Clinton's remark in his deposition on the Monica Lewinsky case: "That depends on what the definition of 'is' is."

Bush and his advisers have conceded that the administration was wrong in its assessment of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction before the US invasion. So the debate centers on whether they misled members of Congress and the American people.

"The fact is this was a truly major failure in intelligence and analysis," said Anthony Cordesman, an Iraq expert and former Pentagon intelligence official. "But that does not mean that information was not manipulated or used to create a case for war that was much stronger than the assessments made before the conflict."

Well, maybe it depends on what the definition of "manipulated" is.

"In reality in this city, on a bipartisan basis, everybody always spins the facts to support the policy they advocate. There are no innocents," said Cordesman, now an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He suggested those in the intelligence community didn't have to be told that, if they wanted to exert influence and have their advice taken seriously, "you better tell policy makers there was a really good case for war."

Anxiety over Iraq among both Republicans and Democrats seemed apparent as the Senate voted 79-19 on Tuesday to demand regular updates from the White House on progress in Iraq until all US troops are withdrawn.

The vote on a defense policy bill came after the GOP-led chamber rejected a far more restrictive Democratic amendment demanding that Bush set a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq.

Bush and senior members of his administration have stepped up their attack on Democrats, singling out those criticizing the war now who supported the October 2002 war resolution like Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and former Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C.

In a speech to US troops in Alaska on his way to a trip to Asia, Bush said Monday it was "irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," suggesting lawmakers had access to the same intelligence - faulty as it turns out - as did the administration and foreign allies.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and the Republican National Committee joined the fray on Tuesday.

Rumsfeld quoted Clinton administration officials who contended in the late 1990s that Saddam was a security threat to the US and its allies, including Clinton, Vice President Al Gore, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser.

The RNC, meanwhile, put on its Web site (http://www.gop.com) a video compilation of such statements, including more recent ones by current Democratic leaders and potential 2008 presidential contenders, including Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, Joe Biden of Delaware and Edwards.

The video implies that such Democrats had later turned against the war, even though Mrs. Clinton has been consistent in supporting Bush's efforts.

Stephen Cimbala, a Pennsylvania State University political scientist who studies war and politics, said the administration's case that it didn't manipulate Iraq information was undermined by the CIA-leak case. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's top aide, was indicted on five counts for obstructing an investigation into the leaking of the identity of an intelligence officer married to an outspoken war critic.

Top Bush strategist Karl Rove remains under investigation.

"The critics of Bush's Iraq policy have more ammunition now," said Cimbala. "And Republicans in Congress are very nervous because they know that, if Bush's numbers don't come up, they could be in big trouble next year in the midterm elections."

Bush's approval is at the low point of his presidency, 37 percent in a recent AP-Ipsos poll.

His Republican base still supports him on Iraq, but that support has been eroding.

His approval on handling Iraq fell from 87 percent among all Republicans in November 2004 to 78 percent this month. Among Republican women, from 88 percent a year ago to 73 percent now. Among independents, approval on Iraq fell from 49 percent in November 2004 to 33 percent now.

Among Democrats, where he has enjoyed little support for his war policies all along, it fell from just 15 percent a year ago to 12 percent now.