Where Do They Stand on the War?
The New York Times has the soundbites that purport to sum up the ‘08 presidential contenders’ positions then and now. It’s rather depressing to see so many Dems now opposed who voted yes in 2002. Rep. Dennis Kucinich comes off as the most emphatically and consistently antiwar candidate, having voted no in ‘02, who said no to Bush’s escalation, and who wants both to de-fund and withdraw immediately:
“This attempt to foment a war is really against the best interests of America, it is against the spirit of the country, it is against the economic interests of the people.” — 9/21/02
“It is simply not credible to maintain that one opposes the war and yet continues to fund it. This contradiction runs as a deep fault line through our politics, undermining public trust in the political process and in those elected to represent the people. If you oppose the war, then do not vote to fund it.” — 1/08/07
On the Republican side, things look dismal. They all voted yes or otherwise advocated war, and only Sen. Chuck Hagel has mustered some opposition (he still isn’t calling for withdrawal):
“In January of 2003, if you recall, the inspectors at the IAEA, who knew more about what Saddam had than anybody, said, ‘Give us two more months before you go to war, because we don’t think there’s anything in there.’ We hadn’t been in there. We didn’t know what the hell was in there. And the president wouldn’t do it! So to answer your question–Do I regret that vote? Yes, I do regret that vote.” — 1/24/07
“A new American strategy for Iraq should include moving our troops out of the cities to Iraq’s border areas, allowing us to help secure the territorial integrity of Iraq which will be seriously threatened and is critical for the future of Iraq.” — 1/10/07
Hagel at least seems to have helped head off some extreme overreaching by the White House in 2002. You think their wars have been disasters? Guess what they wanted to do!
In an interview in GQ Magazine, Hagel reveals that the Bush administration tried to get Congress to approve military action anywhere in the Middle East — not just in Iraq — in the fall of 2002. At the time, Hagel says, the Bush administration presented Congress with a resolution that would have authorized the use of force anywhere in the region:
HAGEL: [F]inally, begrudgingly, [the White House] sent over a resolution for Congress to approve. Well, it was astounding. It said they could go anywhere in the region.
GQ: It wasn’t specific to Iraq?
HAGEL: Oh no. It said the whole region! They could go into Greece or anywhere. Is central Asia in the region? I suppose! Sure as hell it was clear they meant the whole Middle East. It was anything. It was literally anything. No boundaries. No restrictions.
GQ: They expected Congress to let them start a war anywhere in the Middle East?
HAGEL: Yes. Yes. Wide open. We had to rewrite it. Joe Biden, Dick Lugar, and I stripped the language that the White House had set up and put our language in it.
It may be, however, that the Bush Administration has so far been able to start every war they really wanted. It’s hard to tell, now, whether Hagel, Biden and Lugar managed to rein them in significantly.
Who among ‘em would I like elected? Pick any two of Kucinich, Obama and Edwards, and I’d be happy. Any of these would be good in the Oval Office or cracking the whip in the Senate. I would love to see two of them team up early, and announce a dream-team Cabinet—perhaps one that includes the names Gore and Clinton?
Discussion Area - Leave a Comment