Come now, Bush initiated the drive to war. Yes, Congress deserves some of the blame for going along with him, but the push for war began in the White House, not on Capital Hill. As the primary architect of the Iraq War, the lion’s share of the blame (or praise) belongs to the President.
That didn’t come out right. I meant to say something like “Bush bears way more responsibility than anyone else and to pretend otherwise is idiotic”. Me no good at the English today.
I’ve never said differently. But if Congress had voted “No,” then we wouldn’t be in Iraq.
Please do.
Actually, I wouldn’t mind seeing the Standard Republican Excuses meme get a bit of play. It’s a useful bit of disinfectant. The quicker the SRE’s are dismissed the quicker the real debate can begin.
Perhaps if the evidence to convince Congress to conditionally authorize hadn’t been falsified, or massaged, then we wouldn’t be in Iraq. Who’s to blame for that?
And if the administration hadn’t faked the WMD evidence, Congress would likely have voted “No.” What’s your point?
Why, you’re right! And if the U.S. voters had elected a Congress that would have voted “No,” then there wouldn’t have been a war either! Unless Cindy Sheehan pickets EVERY SINGLE PERSON in the United States she’s a PARTISAN HYPOCRITE!
Congress wasn’t pushing for war. The White House was. The White House led, and Congress followed. So the responsibility for the success or failure of the endeavor lies primarily (but not totally) with the White House.
Why is this so hard to understand?
It sure does not fit in pea brained beings that can not realize that the resolution passed by Congress authorized the use of force, if necessary, against Iraq. Bush (as the evidence is mounting) choose to manipulate or ignore the evidence to justify the war, Bush even signed the letter telling congress he had the goods and for his eternal shame:
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/03/19/sprj.irq.bush/
He had to equivocate the war against terror with an elective war.
One bumper sticker spotted recently:
Support Our Troops, Impeach Bush
It’s easy to understand. It’s just hard to spin away in a talking point without looking like a complete moron.
This is a delicious lose/lose proposition for Bush. If he refuses to meet with her, he is heartless towards a Gold Star mother. If he does meet with her, he is a weak flip-flopper. I don’t care what he does, so long as he doesn’t make up his mind for a few more weeks.
Not, to their credit, that many pundits as well as civilians aren’t trying to spin it, though.
It all looks good from here.
Here’s my point: why doesn’t Sheehan demand that Kerry and Hillary join her in Crawford, admit that they were misled by this lying president and renounce their original votes? Can’t they admit that they made a mistake by trusting Bush? Shouldn’t they make known loudly and often that they now oppose this unjust war? Kerry and Hillary are opposed to this war, right? They would vote differently now, yes? Ted Kennedy was smart enough not to trust Bush with going to war…why were Hillary and Kerry so easily fooled?
Wait, wait…this is too good.
So, now you’re saying that they should have tried harder to stop the war? Whereas before, they were being criticized for trying at all and not being in lockstep? BAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA…
Sorry. Carry on.
Tell the truth: you’re actually a robot, aren’t you?
"You fucked up - you trusted us! " —Otter, from Animal House
Of course, but those responsibilities do not extend to the Commander-in-Chief personally justifying strategic decisions to the mothers of fallen soldiers. I was never placed in a situation as threatening as Iraq, but I did serve in a unit whose life expectancy in the event of open hostilities with the Soviet union (pre-fall, obviously) was less than 10 minutes. Had the worst come to pass I would not have expected President Reagan to personally meet with my mother and explain the strategic justifications for maintaining a forward-based tactical missile capability.
I have nothing but sympathy for Mrs Sheehan’s loss and a good amount of sympathy for her political objections to our presence in Iraq. I strongly disagree with the arguments that teh President is in any sense obligated to meet with this woman and assuage her concerns over current military policy or that Mrs Sheehan should be exempt from criticism in the public sphere after she has chosen to make a public and prolonged demonstration with political intent.
Does Hillary Clinton support or oppose the war at this time? What about John Kerry? If they oppose it, why don’t they march down to Crawford and tell the world? If they support it, don’t they also owe Cindy Sheehan an explanation as to why her son had to die? I honestly don’t see what’s so difficult to understand about this question.
That is the context of the Plame scandal, the Downing Street memos, the OSP and many other items that have not been properly investigated to this day, in any case, both Kerry and Hillary concluded that thrusting the president was a good thing to do but regret what Bush did with that power:
http://www.panettainstitute.org/lib/04/hillary_clinton.htm
From many sources I have seen, the information given to congress was tainted, and so they voted with that information. WHO tainted that information is the discussion the right does not want to deal with.
On her previous meeting with Bush: both Bush and the war have lost a lot of support since last summer. I’m not sure why; it was as obvious then as it is now that there’s no end in sight and the reasoning behind the war was bogus. In any event, it’s the case. Maybe Sheehan is among those whose opposition has strengthened in the past year.
Even if her case is less than 100% compelling, she has helped gather an anti-war crowd that neither Bush nor the media can totally ignore. That’s a good thing.
I think we’re in Spread The Blame Around mode.
If Iraq was going well, does anyone believe for an instant that the Republicans would be insisting that the Democrats get their fair share of credit?
You know, Stephe96, I think in your heart of hearts you believe that the war is lost. Otherwise why are you trying to give Hillary Clinton credit for it?
And if you think the war is lost, then why are you criticizing a gold-star mother who wants Bush to bring the troops home?