Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Rove: Congress Pushed Bush to War In Iraq Prematurely
Quote:
Rove: "Congress Pushed Bush to War in Iraq Prematurely"
Posted November 25, 2007 | 08:56 PM (EST)
You are not going to believe this, well, actually you will... According to Karl Rove (on Charlie Rose), the Bush Administration did not want Congress to vote on the Iraq War resolution in the fall of 2002, because they thought it should not be done within the context of an election. Rove, you see, did not think the war vote should be "political".
Moreover, according to Rove, that "premature vote" led to many of the problems that cropped up in the Iraq War. Had Congress not pushed, he says, Bush could have spent more time assembling a coalition, and provided more time to the inspectors.
If you are like me, you have stopped reading/listening, and are rushing to get your anti-emetic.
It is worth remembering that the Senate in the fall of 2002 was controlled, barely, by Democrats. Get it? George Bush, we are being told, wanted to delay, wanted to hold back, wanted to take the time to build a coalition and let the inspectors finish their job, but that damn Congress just pushed him into it. George Bush, you see, is a careful, prudent, leader, deeply concerned about the consequences of premature.
Get it? If Biden, Clinton, Dodd or Edwards is part of the Democratic ticket, the Republicans will run a campaign charging the Senate Democrats with rushing to judgment, of pushing the poor President to premature...(well, you fill in the blank)....
Not that Iraq is that big of an issue. Rove claims that, if Iraq had been a big issue, that Joe Lieberman, who was pro-war, could not have won in Connecticut, defeating receiving more Democratic, Independent and Republican votes than any of his opponents.
I have purposefully NOT provided the (obvious) answers to his claims because to answer is to give him control of the argument. That's Rove's tactic, and I have written about that many times in these pages.
Instead, this should be used as a trigger to talk about Rove's history of dissembling, how that is reflected in the Bush Administration's entire approach to public policy and public information. Bush, through Rove, should be attacked for trying to escape responsibility and accountability. And, it will help to make some historical references to rulers whose tenure was so dismal that they could not allow historians to provide objective analyses, and thus try to write the history themselves.
As might have been predicted, Rove raises "historical revisionism" to new depths, what may become known as "hysterical Rovisionism."
I distinctly remember a speech in DC where 50 Senators proudly stated that you are either with us or against us.
I remember that as well. The rest of the Government was marching to the beat of the war drums as long as it was politically prudent. As soon as it became a mess they started jumping ship like the rats they are.
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
Bush advised Congress need not approve war By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
Published: 27 August 2002
President George Bush has been told by his top legal advisers that he does not need to secure the prior approval of Congress before launching a full-scale war on Iraq.
President George Bush has been told by his top legal advisers that he does not need to secure the prior approval of Congress before launching a full-scale war on Iraq.
The news came as Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, gave one of the most belligerent speeches yet by a leading member of the administration against Saddam Hussein – a first attempt to make the political case for a military strike that the President himself has failed so far to lay out.
Speaking at a veterans' convention yesterday, the Vice-President vowed that the Bush administration "won't look away and hope for the best".
The risks of inaction were far greater than those of action, warned Mr Cheney, a leader of the hawkish faction within the administration. "We will take whatever action is necessary."
Addressing a major concern of those urging caution, he said the US would be ready to help with the rebuilding of Iraq, once President Saddam had been removed. He also predicted that President Saddam's removal would be greeted with joy inside Iraq, and would help the spread of democracy across the entire Arab world.
White House officials confirmed that Al Gonzales, the President's counsel, had advised Mr Bush that he already had sufficient authorisation under the Congressional resolution won by his father before he went to war with President Saddam in 1991. The Iraqi leader had still not met the demands of the resolution.
That advice mirrors the argument that an endorsement from the United Nations already exists, in the shape of the string of resolutions passed by the Security Council since 1990, of which President Saddam is still in breach.
The White House also believes Mr Bush can order action under the Congressional resolution of 14 September, approving military action against terrorism. On 1 June, Mr Bush expanded that authority in his West Point speech, saying the US reserved the right to take "pre-emptive" military action against a country threatening its security.
Even so he may well seek some form of approval from Congress, as demanded by many senior lawmakers, to maximise domestic cover for any strike. The same reasoning was followed by George Bush Senior who, despite being assured there was no constitutional requirement for Congressional approval to drive President Saddam from Kuwait, went ahead and secured that approval anyway.
Yesterday, the White House was careful not to rule out that the son would follow the father. Mr Bush would consider "a variety of legal, policy and historical issues if a Congressional vote were to become a relevant matter," his spokesman Ari Fleischer said. In any case, "he intends to consult with Congress because Congress has an important role to play".
The fact that a legal opinion has been prepared reflects how serious is the administration in threatening force if necessary to achieve regime change in Baghdad – even though no final decision has been taken, and despite deep misgivings in sections of the President's own Republican party.
On Sunday James Baker, his father's Secretary of State and a prime organiser of the international coalition that drove President Saddam from Kuwait, added his voice to those urging Mr Bush to secure the widest possible international backing before making a move. Mr Baker said: "Although the United States could certainly succeed, we should try our best not to have to go it alone, and the President should reject the advice of those who counsel doing so. The costs in all areas will be much greater, as will the political risks." His successor, Lawrence Eagleburger, warned that "any number of complex questions simply haven't been examined."
Meanwhile, for the first time since the Vietnam War, volunteer reservists and National Guard troops have been told they could be kept on active service for up to two years. Some 15,000 of the 76,000 Guardsmen and reservists – most of them hi-tech specialists – have been notified of the extended tour of duty, protecting airports and US military bases at home and overseas as part of the war on terror. Even during the Gulf War, few of the 265,000 Guard and reservist personnel called up spent more than one year under arms.
Whoops.
Between this, asking for injured troops' money back...
Hey an Alberto Gonzales sighting where he claims knowledge of something!
I remember that as well. The rest of the Government was marching to the beat of the war drums as long as it was politically prudent. As soon as it became a mess they started jumping ship like the rats they are.
LMAO, are you serious.
At the very least Congress [a GOP controlled congress] went along with the President based on the trumped up evidence he presented to them.
Man... the BS that pours from these idiots is simply unbelievable. LINK
Q: Mr. President, are you going to send Congress your proposed resolution today? And are you asking for a blank check, sir?
THE PRESIDENT: I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace. And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we've got to move before the elections. I appreciate the strong support we're getting from both Republicans and Democrats, and look forward to working with them.
In Sept. 2002, Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) asked President Bush to delay the vote on the Iraq war:
“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’”
While some Democrats — particularly Rep. Dick Gephardt (D-MO) — were arguing that it was “imperative” that Congress vote immediately to authorize war, had the White House wanted to delay the vote until after the 2002 elections, they would have found a great deal of support. Here’s what a few key leaders were saying at the time:
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-IL): “It would be a severe mistake for us to vote on Iraq with as little information as we have. This would be a rash and hasty decision.”
Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA): “I do not believe the decision should be made in the frenzy of an election year.”
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq” that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution.
But Karl Rove and President Bush weren’t interested in delaying the vote. Rather, the administration actively politicized it. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said, “Delaying a vote in Congress would send the wrong message.” President Bush explicitly told Congress to “get the issue done as quickly as possible“:
My answer to the Congress is, they need to debate this issue and consult with us, and get the issue done as quickly as possible. It’s in our national interests that we do so. I don’t imagine Saddam Hussein sitting around, saying, gosh, I think I’m going to wait for some resolution.
On Sept. 11, 2002, administration officials briefed Congress on Iraq, with the goal of persuading them to schedule a vote to authorize military action. And the administration’s congressional allies were clear on why they wanted to rush the war vote. “People are going to want to know, before the elections, where their representatives stand,” said Rep. Thomas M. Davis (R-VA.), chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee. “This could be the vote of the decade, so why wait?”
At the very least Congress [a GOP controlled congress] went along with the President based on the trumped up evidence he presented to them.
Revisionism abounds.
Yeah and they went along acting like good patriots until it wasn't politically prudent anymore and then they jumped ship. Which is exactly what I said in my first post. Why is that hard to understand?
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
I, for one, saw through the BS the very second that Iraq became a verbal target. For the millionth time, Afghanistan was a good move, but Iraq was a complete non sequitor....
A GOP congress that was going to vote for it regardless and Dems who went along or face the political attack ads in an election year.
Now one could argue they were gutless not to stand up him, sure I'd buy that.
But lets be clear on this. BUSH INITIATED THE WAR PROCESS, BUSH PUSHED IT. IT WAS BUSH'S IDEA.
To try and say now that the reverse was true is a LIE. And it appears some are either naive enough of politically biased enough to buy it. The obvious intent here and the intent of the folks that buy it is to try and mitigate the impact of Iraq on the next election. None of that changes the facts.
A GOP congress that was going to vote for it regardless and Dems who went along or face the political attack ads in an election year.
Now one could argue they were gutless not to stand up him, sure I'd buy that.
But lets be clear on this. BUSH INITIATED THE WAR PROCESS, BUSH PUSHED IT. IT WAS BUSH'S IDEA.
To try and say now that the reverse was true is a LIE. And it appears some are either naive enough of politically biased enough to buy it. The obvious intent here and the intent of the folks that buy it is to try and mitigate the impact of Iraq on the next election. None of that changes the facts.
FACTS WILL OUT THIS IS A LIE
I have yet to see a single post in this thread where anyone even hinted in the smallest way that they believe this story is true. So I really don't get why you feel you need to keep insinuating that someone did.
__________________ "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy".
Cosmic Defender Champion!
Linear Mode
