Democrats Flip-Flopping on Iraq
November 28th, 2007 at 01:26pm Matt Margolis
So, now Bill Clinton is jumping on the “I always opposed the war in Iraq” train.
Does Bill Clinton forget signing the Iraq Liberation Act? Or the fact that his administration was advocating the use of military force against Iraq for years — as were many leaders in the Democratic Party. The problem for Democrats today is that Iraq, for them, is not a national security issue, but a political issue. As Democrats become increasingly more beholden to the interests of the extremist anti-war base of their party, they all have to rewrite their own history and present themselves as longtime opponents of the war. John Kerry did the same thing in 2004 during his presidential campaign… as did John Edwards. Bill Clinton clearly has to follow suit for the sake of his political partner Hillary’s campaign.
In the beginning there was plenty of support for the war in Iraq. Bush’s approval ratings even went up after we first went in. But, Democrats will take any position depending on how the political winds are blowing. They have no backbones and no conviction.
Entry Filed under: Democrats, War on Terror
47 Comments
1. hermie | November 28th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Slick Willy needs to keep the MoveOn crowd on Hillary’s side, and they are so easily suckered in that his claiming that he always opposed it, will magically shore up her support for the nomination.
As the US continues to win against Al Queda, Slick will alter his statements, until he claims that he always supported the war.
Of course, the MSM will say nothing.
2. eric | November 28th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Iraq Liberation Act of 1998
105th Congress, 2nd Session
September 29, 1998
3. Diana Powe | November 28th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Well, it is named Blogs For Victo(r)y so you wouldn’t expect much interest in scanning the skies for Republican members of that brightly-colored species politicianus flipfloppius. This is, amazingly enough, a feature of only the Democratic type of fowl.
That statement made during a reelection campaign featuring attacks on the character of service in Vietnam of his opponent. However, three years later:
An analogy employed by someone no longer campaigning for office.
However, you won’t hear me claiming that there aren’t ample examples of weaselly, spineless Democrats inhabiting Washington. All but a few folded up like a circus tent in the face of the joint government/media cheerleading for the invasion in 2003 rather than calling the Administration on its alleged evidence for the existence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. Had they genuinely been an opposition party rather than the party of inter-party appeasement, there’s a chance, not a large one, but a chance that 3,878 American soldiers would still be alive and my youngest nephew wouldn’t be in Haditha, Iraq with his Marine infantry unit right now.
4. Ricorun | November 28th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
Re: Saddam… we had the guy in a box in March 2003. Whether or not he was capable of wriggling out of it at some time in the future is an independent question. I’ve said that from the very beginning. I wasn’t aware that Bill Clinton said the same thing at the time, but now that I know I have no choice but to agree — even if I were inclined to disagree, which I’m not. WE HAD SADDAM IN A BOX!!! Weirdly, now Karl Rove is claiming that congress forced the administration’s hand — he’s actually saying that THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WANTED TO POSTPONE THE INVASION. But congress forced their hand!!! Very surreal.
5. Ricorun | November 28th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Pardon my “shouts”. But I’m dumbfounded. And to be honest, I am angry. The things that have come out over the past few days have done that. I want to know to what extent Rove is right.
6. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
Diana,
Your posts make absolutely zero sense. Just FYI.
Rico,
Have you read Piros new book? We only thought we had Saddam contained, which is a mistake we have made many times over. So don’t fool yourself.
In seven months of secret debriefings, Saddam Hussein admitted that he faked having weapons of mass destruction but planned on developing a weapons of mass destruction program with nuclear capability within a year. - “The Terrorist Watch: Inside the Desperate Race to the Next Attack”
So Saddam was on the right track. His plan to have sanctions lifted was working. But he told me he recognized that he miscalculated the long-term effects of 9/11. And he miscalculated President Bush.”
7. Ricorun | November 28th, 2007 at 4:39 pm
Okay, it’s going to take me a while to settle down. I don’t know how to convey the emotion accurately, but I REALLY AM PISSED! I just don’t know yet who I’m most pissed at, lol!
I laugh, but I don’t freakin’ get it. I’m angry… and discouraged. Granted, the fact that we’re there in Iraq changes the equation (you can’t undo what you did), but all of a sudden the question of who loaded the equation in the first place just changed dramatically. To me, the question of who to believe has been turned on its head.
8. Diana Powe | November 28th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
neocon,
Well, I guess I’ve been put in my place. If you ever came out from behind your pseudonym, maybe you could employ this amazing rhetorical ability of yours as a professional debater. However, have you ever considered the efficiency of the shorter “nanny, nanny, boo boo” or “liar, liar, pants on fire”? It would save you some typing.
Oh, and the crickets are still chirping from November 17th (”It Didn’t Take Long…”) FYI
9. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
Diana,
You(r) half assed attempts at pointing out a flip-flop on behalf of the WH was completely non-sensical.
You then went to assert that had there been Congressmen with crystal balls, our soldiers would not have had to fight.
And you(r) very cute, very juvenile manne(r) of paranthesizing the r’s, demonstrates your immaturity and ignorance.
And you wonder why I don’t take you seriously.
10. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
Rico,
Settle down and actually watch the Charlie Rose interview. Rove DID NOT say that Congress forced their hand. He DID NOT say that the administration wanted to postpone the invasion.
He merely said that the administration had hoped that the vote had taken place later but outside the confines of the November 2002 election because they did not want the political implications.
11. Brian Gregory | November 28th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
Typical of the the ever-slick Bill. This election is turning out FAR differently than I ever thought it would. I never dreamed of major discussion on anything BUT Iraq and immigration.
Now, with Iraq turning in the right direction and talks of leaving having been started, all game plans are being thrown out and new stars and rising. I think that’s why Huckabee is looking so good and the dems are all stumbling - they weren’t prepared to do anything but bash the President and this war!
12. Ricorun | November 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
neocon: Have you read Piros new book? We only thought we had Saddam contained, which is a mistake we have made many times over. So don’t fool yourself.
The question is to what extent Saddam was an imminent threat or a more distant threat. Much of foreign policy, for the last century at least, has revolved around that question. If you really read Piro’s book you could answer the question with consummate authority — theoretically at least. Either way, I don’t suspect you can.
But if you could, I further suspect your answer would most likely be different than your apparent conclusion. I mean for crying out loud, the Knight-Ridder newspaper chain (now McClatchy) was reporting at the time what Piro now concedes — that Saddam’s lies were far more about BSing Iran than it was BSing the US. Any real student of ME politics would be hard-pressed to disagree. Regardless of what one’s sentiments were regarding the latter were (i.e., the vagaries of US involvement), you’d have to be pretty close to brain dead not to realize that the former (i.e., how Saddam portrayed himself to Iran) was a REALLY BIG DEAL. How could anyone not recognize that? That’s a very big question to me. We had the guy in a box. We had him in a box, DAMMIT!.
We had so many opportunities, and we blew so many. Considering that, you’re much better off arguing on the basis of what is now, rather than on the basis of what was. After all, it’s becoming increasingly obvious that arguing on the basis of what could have been is basically arguing who is more responsible for spilling the milk after the milk is spilled. Or to fracture another metaphore (pun intended), you can’t put Humpty Dumpty back together again. Better to work on building a Queen of Hearts (if you need help, that was a Lewis Carrol metaphore).
13. Joe | November 28th, 2007 at 5:47 pm
neocon,
And you(r) very cute, very juvenile manne(r) of paranthesizing the r’s, demonstrates your immaturity and ignorance.
Have you looked at the name of this blog? Do you think Diana did that on her own?
You are not that big of an idiot, are you???
14. Diana Powe | November 28th, 2007 at 5:52 pm
neocon,
So the evidence of what the President said didn’t make sense to you. That’s fine. Believe it or not, I didn’t hold an expectation in my head that what I wrote would cause you to have a “road to Damascus” experience. As to my being “cute” and “juvenile” with a lack of “maturity” resulting from my “ignorance” I would direct your attention to the very top of the page where the name of the blog can be found. That would be…Blogs For Victo(r)y!
15. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 5:59 pm
Yes, and you(r) continuance of that precludes me from considering your posts with much sincerity.
Sorry.
Furthermore, the WH thought the analogy of the WAR in Vietnam to the WAR in Iraq was invalid. However the stateside opposition of those two wars are similar. That’s not a flip-flop.
Just FYI.
16. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
>>We had so many opportunities, and we blew so many. - Rico<<
WE DID NOT HAVE SADDAM CONTAINED. We had him in temporary idle at the very best.
And I assume that your assertion of having so many opportunities means that we had several opportunities to leave Saddam in power, right?
If that is the case, I have one question. How firmly do you believe in Human Rights and to what extent would you sacrifice for them?
17. Mark Noonan | November 28th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Any lefty want to actually comment on the subject of the thread?
18. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
Mark,
Bill Clinton saying things for political expediency is equivalent to the “dog bites man” story.
It’s just expected, even by liberals.
19. Diana Powe | November 28th, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Mark,
I did. Whether the post correctly identified a flip-flop or not, expediency is what politicians do, be they Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians or what have you. As neocon says, it’s a “dog bites man” story. Claims that Republican politicians are somehow above that disregard history and well-documented human nature.
20. Diana Powe | November 28th, 2007 at 6:34 pm
The fact is that the Democrats failed as a political party in 2003 because they did not challenge the Administration’s claims of evidence to justify the invasion of a country that had not attacked us. As is true of human beings generally, they don’t want to openly acknowledge their failures especially since we now have all the bad results of the last four and a half years. Congressional Democrats have consistently played Charlie Brown to the Republican’s Lucy during all this time because they pathetically think that if they enable the GOP that Republicans won’t attack them anyway. That’s why the Congress has such poor approval ratings. Voters who elected Democrats wanted progress on our getting out of Iraq and the Democrats have failed to deliver.
21. InDaVa | November 28th, 2007 at 6:35 pm
Yea, Clinton kind of flip flopped.
Republicans flip flop quite frequently and so do Democrats. Do you need more examples of Republicans and Democrats flip flopping to prove it? Not Enough bandwidth. This is a non issue really other than making a Clinton look bad.
22. Ricorun | November 28th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
neocon: And I assume that your assertion of having so many opportunities means that we had several opportunities to leave Saddam in power, right?
No. I was referring to everything that happened between, say, October 2002 and now. Leaving Saddam in power (or any of his progeny) was unacceptable in the long run. But saying that doesn’t condone or preclude any action, or (perhaps more importantly) the timing of any action. To me, the essential question was two-fold: (1) the timing of the action, and; (2) who in the international community was involved.
The two considerations are not necessarily completely independent of each other, but likewise they are not completely dependent either. That’s where statesmanship comes in. And if anything, the Bush administration has demonstrated that statesmanship really does count — because they have gotten essentially nowhere in virtually every situation where they have attempted to eliminate statesmanship.
So much for a black and white view of the world.
23. eric | November 28th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
This really is not a non-issue because his wife is seeking the democratic nomination. Former President Clinton is clearly trying to distance himself (and her by proxy) from the war. Obviously, this is an effort to cater to the anti-war left. As progress continues in Iraq, this tactic is going to prove to be a mistake for the left. One wonders at what point will those candidates that have flopped, flip back to their original support for the war (the classic flip-flop-flip).
24. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Diana,
Congress had the same intel that the WH, the French, the British, the Germans and everyone else had. And nearly everyone came to the same conclusion.
>>to the Republican?s Lucy during all this time because they pathetically think that if they enable the GOP that Republicans won?t attack them anyway. - Diana<<
Are you saying that the Dems are afraid of Republican attacks so they sold out? Seriously?
The 2006 election was not a “get out of Iraq” vote. The Dems campaigned on a “change of direction” in Iraq, not a pull-out.
25. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
Rico,
Why are you obsessed with the past? I don’t believe any of the conspiracies and I don’t believe naything nefarious or underhanded was at play. The intel was simply wrong on WMD’s, but there were plenty of other very valid reasons to go into Iraq. Clintons Iraq Regime Change policy indicates that other administrations felt the same.
26. CallMeTeach | November 28th, 2007 at 7:08 pm
How firmly do you believe in Human Rights and to what extent would you sacrifice for them?
Stop kidding yourself - we didn’t remove Saddam for his human rights record. And if we were worried about human rights we wouldn’t be allies with any country in the Middle East other than Kuwait and UAE and even that is debatable. And its worth mentioning that the majority of the people he killed was the result of putting down armed rebellions many of which we instigated.
27. Casper | November 28th, 2007 at 7:09 pm
“This really is not a non-issue because his wife is seeking the democratic nomination. Former President Clinton is clearly trying to distance himself (and her by proxy) from the war. Obviously, this is an effort to cater to the anti-war left. As progress continues in Iraq, this tactic is going to prove to be a mistake for the left. ”
Only if Hillary gets the nomination.
28. Casper | November 28th, 2007 at 7:15 pm
>>to the Republican?s Lucy during all this time because they pathetically think that if they enable the GOP that Republicans won?t attack them anyway. - Diana<<
“Are you saying that the Dems are afraid of Republican attacks so they sold out? Seriously?”
I would say that the Democrats have proven they will cave anytime a Republican yells security.
29. eric | November 28th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Casper,
True.
Teach,
Are we not allies with Israel? Or, do you not recognize Israel as a sovereign nation? Also, are you seriously defending Saddam Hussein’s actions in killing his own citizens. Since when does putting down an armed rebellion result in a mass grave of women and children? (http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/13/iraq.graves/)
30. eric | November 28th, 2007 at 7:21 pm
From the same article that I just cited:
“Human rights groups believe about 300,000 people were killed during Saddam’s 24-year rule.”
That must have been some armed rebellion.
31. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 7:22 pm
The majority of people Saddam killed was the result of putting down armed rebellions?
Wow. That is the height of liberal dishonesty to make a political point. Do you write for MoveOn.org?
Casper,
What you’re in effect saying is that the Dems can dish it out, but can’t take it, right? And you want them to lead the free world? You’ve got to be kidding me.
32. Casper | November 28th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
“What you’re in effect saying is that the Dems can dish it out, but can’t take it, right? And you want them to lead the free world? You’ve got to be kidding me.”
Yes. No. No.
I have about as little respect for the Democrats as I do the Republicans. I would very much love to see a third party.
33. neocon | November 28th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
What do you think of Huckabee?
34. eric | November 28th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Neo,
Regardless of what anyone thinks, his past is going to haunt him.
35. Diana Powe | November 28th, 2007 at 7:47 pm
I wouldn’t say they’ve “sold out” because, in large part, Democrats don’t question the underlying assumption that the United States can use military force essentially at will to make other countries conform to our “interests” anymore than Republicans do. The greater differences, such as they are, between the two parties are in domestic issues.
36. William Teach | November 28th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
“And its worth mentioning that the majority of the people he killed was the result of putting down armed rebellions many of which we instigated.”
I wasn’t aware that the 50K children dying each year in Iraq during the sanctions because Saddam took the money meant for food and medicine, plus what his regime did to them, in a study done by a Jordanian doctor, were involved in armed rebellions.
Exactly where did all these people get their weapons?
37. Casper | November 28th, 2007 at 8:20 pm
What do you think of Huckabee?
At this point I would take him over either of the front runners. I don’t know enough about him to support him 100% at this point.
38. William Teach | November 28th, 2007 at 8:52 pm
I’m sorta ashamed to say I have only been watching between periods. My Devils are on.
I loved Huckabee’s answer on the fair tax. Jumped right into the answer, no hesitation. McCain flopped in saying no the fair tax, then spinning around like a top. He sounds like he has been in DC too long.
Then there is Paul’s “let’s cut and run” monologues. I was pleased with McCain calling him on that BS.
39. William Teach | November 28th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
PS: Huckabee has some good points and some bad points. He has shown himself to be a large gov Republican. Check this site out
http://www.issues2000.org/Mike_Huckabee.htm
40. Matt Margolis | November 28th, 2007 at 8:55 pm
Got an open thread to discuss the debate here.
41. Ricorun | November 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
neocon: Why are you obsessed with the past?
Where? Bosnia? Kosovo? Iraq? Afghanistan? I’ll tell you what — give me a cogent argument for why you think we should remain (or not) in each of those places and I’ll respond in turn. I promise that I will attempt to do so with due diligence at least equal to that which you generally exhibit. Granted, that sets the bar considerably lower than I’m usually inclined to go, but I’m willing to go there if you’re inclined to push me.
42. Kahn | November 29th, 2007 at 12:54 am
Rico -welllll, how about the fact that our continued presence in Iraq may give them the space they need to reconcile. And, it may be the driving force (along with Iran’s agression) that brings peace in Israel. We are a mid-east power. yep, we are.
Is that OK?
43. Dittohead4Life | November 29th, 2007 at 6:05 am
Eric posted:
The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:
“It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime.”
Thanks, Eric, I had forgotten the ILA. This shows the blatant hypocrisy in the Donkaroach party. How many times, before and after the invasion, have we heard from them, “You can’t impose democracy on a sovereign nation?”
Yet, that’s what the Donkaroach-written, Donkaroach-sponsored ILA proposed. I guess it’s okay when you’re a Donkaroach, to impose democracy on a sovereign nation.
Just like SS. The Donkaroaches want it fixed, but not by the GOP. Just like slot machines in MD, my home state. When the governor was a Republican, the state assembly, mostly Donk, opposed slots. Now that Fartin’ O’Smelly is gov, the assembly approves of slots, and there’s gonna be a referendum on slots next year.
Donkaroaches–the Culture of Hypocrisy.
Rico, what’cha mad about? I’m a little slow, so please explain.
Later…
44. neocon | November 29th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Rico,
If you can not discern my positions from any of my previous posts, and arguments with you, then your thicker than I give you credit for.
I grow little tired of repeating myself to dense debaters.
45. navydad | November 29th, 2007 at 9:18 am
DH4L
In essence, Rico feels he was duped by the administration. The problem with this is for almost two years (longer for some of you), we’ve been re-hashing this very issue of whether or not we should have left Saddam intact.
Rico, as my Mom has always said…”get over it!”
46. coulterfan | November 30th, 2007 at 9:35 am
>>But, Democrats will take any position depending on how the political winds are blowing. They have no backbones and no conviction.
This is kind of ironic, don’t you think?
Just what IS Romney’s position on abortion, gay rights, affirmative action, etc?
What’s Guilliani’s position on gun control, gay marriage, abortion (okay, so he is STILL a big pro-abortion advocate but for how much longer?)
And why are ALL of them running away from being the ‘BUSH Republicans’ that they have been for the past 7 years? Why have they STOPPED praising him so profusely?
Who is blowing in the political winds again?
47. mvylopow&hellip | December 29th, 2007 at 10:31 am
mvylopow
mvylopow