"The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real," John Kerry forcefully declared a few months before the start of the Iraq war. "Saddam Hussein has continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction. According to intelligence, Iraq has chemical and biological weapons as well as missiles with ranges in excess of the 150 kilometer restriction imposed by the United Nations in the ceasefire resolution."

On Sunday's Meet the Press, host Tim Russert read from this speech, in which Kerry also shared visions of Saddam using nukes against U.S. tropps, and asked Ted Kennedy to comment on on it--without revealing its author to the senator. Kennedy replied that such comments "concerned" him and were among the reasons why Harry Reid and the Democrats called the Senate into closed session last week "to get to the bottom of this investigation." "But, Senator," replied Russert, "what the Democrats stood for on the floor of the Senate in 2002--let me show you who said what I just read: John Kerry, your candidate for president. He was talking about a nuclear threat from Saddam Hussein. Hillary Clinton voted for the war. John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, John Kerry. Democrats said the same things about Saddam Hussein."

And herein lies the problem of Democrats making a political issue out of bogus pre-war intelligence. Democrats fell for the same bad Iraq intelligence that Republicans fell for. This doesn't excuse the mistakes of Republicans, as some GOP camp-followers invoking golden-oldies Iraq quotes of Kerry, Hillary, and Edwards seem to believe, but it does highlight the complicity of the pre-war Democrats in perpetuating Iraq falsehoods and the hypocrisy of post-war Democrats in slamming Republicans for them.

The Republicans stood for the wrong thing. The Democrats stood for nothing. This ambiguous, pre-war Democrat position (or positioning?)--best exemplified by candidate Kerry's infamous locution, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it"--was politically calculated with the elections of '02 and '04 in mind. Democrats could have opposed the war when doing so meant something, but they chose to punt. Now, in playing the blame game 2,000 American deaths later, political considerations again rule their actions. This administration, which sold a war based on false assumptions, deserves a more principled and effective opposition.

America needs William J. Clinton back. The economy was good back then. The Democrats need Clinton back. The president told the truth back then.

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1998/12/16/transcripts/clinton.html

See?

Yes, the Democratic Party should prove itself a viable, not a laughable, alternative to the Republicans. It should marginalize, not embrace the Howard Deans the Dennis Kuciniches, the Al Sharptons and Gores who (to run with your phrasing here) opportunistically position themselves rather than undertake principled opposition. Throughout the 90s and even through the Axis of Evil speech, as long as he failed to comply with UN resolutions to eliminate WMD, there was bipartisan support for removing Saddam Hussein. Once Dean shot ahead in the lead-up to the primaries, however, most other presidential aspirants danced to his beat. They became jockeys, not contenders.

Still, WMD (or the demonstrable lack of it) is only one of several pressing issues that invited the US-led invasion. Others include Saddam's "material breach" of UN resolutions; his demonstrated propensity for WMD use; his potential development and/or distribution of them to an implacable enemy; his financing of Palestinian suicide bombers; and his bestial tyranny upon his own citizens. The 2,000+ American dead have sacrificed, at the very least, on behalf of our government's commitment to tackle all these issues.

I appreciate the patriotic spirit of the war criticism voiced here, and have tried to reply in kind. -JD

"I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky (pointing finder)"

"Oh, yeah, and I rode the tech bubble and the resulting surge in the stock market to a tidal wave economy. And you saps think it was all because of me! Heh heh"

When will the Democrats learn that a platform based solely on, "Republicans are wrong" does not resonate with voters? You said it, "Democrats stood for nothing," and they still hold tight to that position. The reason why the Republicans have been successful politically is becasue they have a clear message and they stick to it.

What Russert did was exactly what Sen. Robertson, chair of the intelligence committee, proposed to do.

At the bottom of the closed-session stunt of last week was the Senate Democrats' charge that Republicans were stalling the committee's investigation of pre-war intelligence. The 'investigation' that the Democrats wanted was a review of statements made by the Bush administration to determine whether they were supported by the pre-war intelligence. In other words, whether the President and Co. went out on a limb.

Roberts agreed on the condition that the administration's statement be blindly reviewed along with those of Senate Democrats. For obvious reasons (e.g., Sen. Clinton in the well of the Senate sounding like a White House spokesperson) the Democrats balked.

Good for Russert. At least he is an equal opportunity zinger.

Dan, while I can't speak for every one of the "GOP camp-followers invoking golden-oldies Iraq quotes of Kerry, Hillary, and Edwards" who seek to "excuse the mistakes of Republicans", I for have only tried to point out the sheer hypocrisy and falsity of the Libs who have tried further the "Bush Lied" scenario. Bush may have been mistaken, but he didn't lie. Although, given the amount of WMDs found to date (see below), he wasn't as mistaken as the MSM would like us to believe.

Here's what has been found to date based on Richard Miniter's exhaustive research:

1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium

* 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents

* 17 chemical warheads containing cyclosarin (a nerve agent five times more deadly than sarin gas)

* Over 1,000 radioactive materials in powdered form meant for dispersal over populated areas

* Roadside bombs loaded with mustard and "conventional" sarin gas, assembled in binary chemical projectiles for maximum potency

This is only a PARTIAL LIST of the horrific weapons verified to have been recovered in Iraq to date. Yet Americans overwhelmingly believe U.S. and coalition forces have found NO weapons of mass destruction.

The question is: WHY do they believe this?

Do you have a link to that? I could use it.

Thom,

There's no way that's accurate. If metric tons of enriched unranium, 1500 gallons of chemical weapons agents, etc. had actually been found, we'd hear about it at every White House press briefing. The fact that we havn't heard a peep means that Mr. Miniter's (whoever he is) "exhaustive research" is completely bogus.

Ralph, I understand your point, but can only refer you to Miniter's book. He also wrote "Losing Bin Laden", and I have always found his conclusions to be pretty solid. His newest book is entitled "Disinformation: 22 Media Myths That Undermine the War on Terror". I would recommend you read it, as it is concise and informative. As to his facts, I will email Mr. Miniter and report back to you as soon as I hear from him.

Thom,

Arguing that we've uncovered large quantities of WMD in Iraq is just flat out inaccurate. The uranium we "uncovered" in Iraq was in IAEA seals and was inspected annually. Everyone knew Iraq had this uranium and treating it as if it's some sort of revelation or secret attempt by Saddam Hussein to re-start a nuclear weapon program is plain dishonet. The cyclosarin we "uncovered" was later found to be a harmless material. The roadside IED that contained sarin was a binary agent so no sarin was actually formed upon detonation.

However, your presentation makes it seem as if we really did uncover large quantites of WMD and only the liberal media has prevented us knowing the truth -- never mind that Judith Miller was part of the cabal that sold this country the war.

Paul Wolfowitz said the that WMD was the one bureaucractic issue "we all could agree on" but that Saddam's brutality against his own people wasn't worth one American life. If America is now responsible for playing global cop then we really need to think seriously about supporting tax increases -- and prepare for big government -- because that is exactly what this foreign policy will require.

Throwing a laundry list of bad things Hussein has done is just simple misdirection: the case for war WMD and that case was a lie. Refashioning the casus belli to meet the new realities -- nation building, fighting an insurgency -- only perpetuates the dishonesty. The Administration had no plan for building Iraq and they had no plan to fight this type of insurgency, so arguing we invaded Iraq to fight insurgents or engage in nation-building is tranparent propaganda. How could something this Administration didn't plan for be the reason for war?

Did Bush lie? Of course he did. On the eve of war -- March 17 2003 -- President Bush said the "intelligence...leaves no doubt Iraq continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." What intelligence was he citing that left no doubt? The United Nation inspectors left Iraq saying there was no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. So how could there be "no doubt" Iraq had weapons when there was no evidence? Well, there couldn't be -- but then again you can always lie a la George Bush.

Hey Dan... Long time no speak. Well, you haven't grown or changed a bit. You still perceive the political world in a black or white context. The war, the information and executive decisions leading into it as such, have nothing to do with democrats or republicans in a theoretical sense. But, have everything to do with deceit, fabrications, greed and war profiteering. Nice try though, tying to cover-up your war-hawk infested party by putting an equal amount of blame on the dems. Its to be expected however.

Oh yeah, just incase any of you individuals care, "your" government and war machine has and is conducting war crimes of epic proportions in Iraq as of late. Civilians just like you and me. This story is just about to break. Read and watch this italian documentary here www.livejournal.com/users/mparent7777/4236736.html

Joe,

I think we need to distinguish between ordinary Republicans and Democrats and the Bush Administration. This Bush Administration was particularly culpable in taking this country into war while the House Democrat and Republicans were either to weak or too disinterested to oppose them and seek out the real information. I don't think it's fair to throw Democrats into the same boat with Bush White House officials because they were the ones who made trips to the CIA, circumvented regular intelligence vetting processes, organized alternative intelligence networks WHIG and OSP, and made the charge to invade Iraq. While the Bush White House is full of liars and tricksters, I don't think you can make the same charge against House and Senate Republicans and Democrats.

But let's not kid ourselves. This war has been an unmitigated disaster and anyone worth his salt should be speaking out against it and doing everything in his power to stop it. Democrats are not an alternative -- after all they're the ones who ensared us in Kosovo.

Eric, first, I went back over my email and confirmed I never used the term "large" to describe the amount of WMDs uncovered; you inserted it.

Second, of course the artillery shells contain binary agents. They are designed to mix the agents in flight to reduce the threat of accidental detonation to the forces employing them. Does that somehow NOT make them WMDs?

Second, my only reason for citing the list of WMD material found was to point out that it's untrue that "no" WMDs were found. If you find something, you cannot by definition have found nothing.

Third, I'm not certain why you and others against the war are so focused on labeling Bush a liar. Webster's defines the verb "lie" as "to make a statement that one KNOWS (my emphasis) is false". Now, our prewar intelligence may have been wrong, but relying on it does NOT make George Bush a liar; it makes him wrong. BIG difference. As for your comment that the UN inspectors "left" Iraq stating they had uncovered no evidence of WMD programs, that in no way means they were saying Iraq HAD none. If you'll remember, the inspectors were being denied access to numerous sites, delayed access and then presented with empty buildings, thrown out of the country, etc., etc. etc. NO ONE, including the amazingly insightful (but only after the fact and having received $400,000 from Saddam!) Scott Ritter claimed at the time Saddam HAD none.

You can be against the war all day long, dispute that democracy in Iraq is good, bad or indifferent. You can claim freedom from tyranny for 60,000,000 Iraqis isn't worth one American life (why then did we wage war against Germany in WWII?) Just don't argue Bush "lied" when you cannot support the statement with fact.

Eric: "Refashioning the casus belli to meet the new realities ... only perpetuates the dishonesty."

Politics is not always consistent with honesty. Lies can serve a greater good.

We have previously disagreed about whether a second term for the Bush administration was better than a Kerry administration. Now that some time has passed, let me ask your opinion again. Suppose that Roberts and Alito turn out to be 'conservative' jurists (leaving aside appeals judges such as Brown, Pryor and Owen, and tax cuts). Is the Bush administration a net gain or not?

Thom,

The binary agent we uncovered was from an IED, not one that was fired from an artillery rocket so no sarin was actually formed. The uranium was in IAEA seals so we did not "find" anything. If you already know something exists and it's inspected annually then you haven't found anything.

We did not wage war against Germany to turn it into a democracy. In fact the original plan was to starve the people, de-industrialize it and reduce it to a pastoral country.

We are not fighting for freedom in Iraq nor are we fighting for democracy. We are fighting for political parties like the Dawa Party and the SCIRI. If you think Americans should die for political parties no American would even vote for -- even you -- then you have a very twisted and deranged morality.

No one can prove a negative and show that Iraq did not have weapons -- and that's not the point. The point is that President Bush said the "intelligence...left no doubt Iraq" had WMD and the U.N. inspectors left Iraq saying there was no evidence of any WMD programs in Iraq. So Bush is citing evidence that doesn't exist; this is lying. If I say I have evidence that leaves no doubt John Doe is guilty of a crime and I have no evidence at all, am I lying? Of course.

President Bush also said that Iraq "continues to be a threat of a unique urgency." What intelligence was he citing that led him to this conclusion? There was no intelligence report indicating Iraq was a unique threat to this country. So far these "horrific" weapons that you mentioned have killed less Americans than Ted Kennedy's car. So spare me the melodrama.

Also, fighting for "freedom and democracy," if that's how you want to put it, is totally outside the conservative view of foreign policy and properly belongs to liberal interventionist school of thought.

Ralph,
So far no.

Thom: Germany declared war on us. That--and not a liberation crusade--is what got the U.S. into the European theater during WWII. Liberating much of Europe from Nazi tyranny was one the happy results of WWII, but we did leave a rather massive portion of Germany--called East Germany--under the rule of other tyrants.

Liberation was neither the reason Americans went to war during WWII nor the reason that the U.S. attacked Iraq. But after the fact, large segments of the population saw liberation as the casus belli. It wasn't, even if it was a happy consequence.

Also, I wouldn't consider the Yalta conference a watershed moment in the history of human liberty.

I never believed war was the solution we had to resolve ourselves to. It was not a necessity to do what needed to be done. This is the most obvious and the biggest lie of them all.