Nebraska Rep. breaks with Bush on Iraq

[Mavdog]

This guy gets it. From the Lincoln Star Journal.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bereuter: War in Iraq not justified
by don walton

In a dramatic departure from the Bush administration, Republican Rep. Doug Bereuter says he now believes the U.S. military assault on Iraq was unjustified.

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action," Bereuter wrote in a letter to constituents in the final days of his congressional career.

That's especially true in view of the fact that the attack was initiated "without a broad and engaged international coalition," the 1st District congressman said.

"Knowing now what I know about the reliance on the tenuous or insufficiently corroborated intelligence used to conclude that Saddam maintained a substantial WMD (weapons of mass destruction) arsenal, I believe that launching the pre-emptive military action was not justified."

As a result of the war, he said, "our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

Bereuter is a senior member of the House International Relations Committee and vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

His four-page letter represented a departure from his support for a 2002 House resolution authorizing the president to go to war.

His vote to authorize the use of military force - even pre-emptive force - was based on faulty, or misrepresented, intelligence that led to the fear Saddam Hussein would share weapons of mass destruction with terrorists, Bereuter said.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," he said.

In a floor statement accompanying his 2002 vote, Bereuter urged that the international coalition be broadened and the administration adequately plan for the consequences of war and not divert resources from the battle against al-Qaida and the stabilization of Afghanistan.

Despite acknowledged intelligence failures and failure to locate weapons of mass destruction, President Bush continues to forcefully argue the war was justified because Saddam represented a threat to the United States, his neighbors and the people of Iraq.

While criticizing the manner in which the administration went to war, Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry has said he still would have voted for the authorizing resolution knowing what he knows today.

Bereuter pointed to a list of negative consequences arising from the war.

"The cost in casualties is already large and growing," he said, "and the immediate and long-term financial costs are incredible.

"From the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force.

"Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the Muslim world."

Bereuter sent the letter to constituents who have contacted him about the war.

"I felt I should send you a forthright update of my views and conclusions on that subject before I leave office," he said.

Bereuter will depart the House after 26 years to become president of the Asia Foundation on Sept. 1.

Congress and the administration "must learn from the errors and failures" related to the attack and its aftermath, he said.

"The toll in American military casualties and those of civilians, physical damages caused, financial resources spent, and the damage to the support and image of America abroad all demand such an assessment and accounting."

In addition to "a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence" concerning weapons of mass destruction, Bereuter said, the Bush administration made a number of errors in prosecuting the war despite warnings about the consequences.

"American and coalition forces were inadequate in number to take effective control of Iraq when the initial military action was completed," he said.

Other mistakes included disbanding the Iraqi army and placing responsibility for reconstruction with the Department of Defense instead of the Department of State, he said.

[FishForLunch]

Interesting he is talking now that he is retiring. I think all the spineless politicians need to be term limited to avoid them not voting their mind and sticking their finger in the air.

[LRB]

It's one man's opinion for what it's worth. I guess he's just trying to Bash Kerry for saying that invasion of Iraq was justified.

[Drbio]

Since Kerry agreed with Bush on the justification, I guess it cuts both ways. Of course, Mavdoogie would never acknoweldge that fact.

Idiot.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Since Kerry agreed with Bush on the justification, I guess it cuts both ways. Of course, Mavdoogie would never acknoweldge that fact.

Idiot.

I know it's hard for a self described "idiot" such as yourself to grasp, but the Kerry comments went further than the "justification" of an attack. The criticism leveled by Kerry was the execution of the war itself, which has resulted in a continued loss of life by both US forces and Iraqis, and the apparent rush to invade without the coopertion of the UN (which is the body with the authorization, not the Pres of the US) making the War illegal under International Law.

[LRB]

and the apparent rush to invade without the coopertion of the UN (which is the body with the authorization, not the Pres of the US) making the War illegal under International Law.

Which is why Kerry voted to go to war and recently affirmed that knowing what we know now he'd still vote that way?

[knowitall]

Hey Mavdog, how long did it take you to create all these friendship? After just one of your opinions?

[MavKikiNYC]

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, ...

Need one read further?

[Drbio]

Mavdog- really...when you turn a putdown around on someone else and only say the same thing they did....it's pretty pathetic. I know it is your way, but please...try to be at least a little more creative in the putdown arena. I know your brainless cavity of a head will strain to do it, but please....how about a shred of originality. You've been nothing shy of pathetic since day one.


It's laughable that Mavdoogie and the like see nothing wrong with criticizing Bush when Kerry voted the EXACT same way and has stated that he would have authorized the Iraq war as well. You just don't get to have it both ways girls.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: knowitall
Hey Mavdog, how long did it take you to create all these friendship? After just one of your opinions?

Yet another nonquality blank space of nothingness.


Impressive.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: Drbio
Mavdog- really...when you turn a putdown around on someone else and only say the same thing they did....it's pretty pathetic. I know it is your way, but please...try to be at least a little more creative in the putdown arena. I know your brainless cavity of a head will strain to do it, but please....how about a shred of originality. You've been nothing shy of pathetic since day one.

when the shoe fits, which it surely does on your foot when you don't have it in your mouth (not often), wear it. and you do. fabulously.

It's laughable that Mavdoogie and the like see nothing wrong with criticizing Bush when Kerry voted the EXACT same way and has stated that he would have authorized the Iraq war as well. You just don't get to have it both ways girls.

what's laughable is your failure to understand the Kerry position. even after it was explained. but comphrehension isn't a strong trait of your posts.

I'll try and make it very simple for you, maybe you'll understand it that way. The vote was to authorize the use of force should force be needed. The vote was not if there should be a war on Iraq, not a vote to declare war, it was to allow for the President to use the force (I'm sure you don't know this, but the Pres doesn't have the power to launch war, that's a legislative power) if and when force was required.

Kerry has stated he would vote the same way today, allowing for that use of war should war be necessary, although Kerry sees that the need for war was nonexistant when we invaded Iraq, and the decision was a poor one as the international community was not supportive of our invasion, the invasion was not well planned for what resulted after our attack was over, and we are bearing the costs for those poor decisions in both monetary and also human ways. In addition, the Iraqis themselves continue to pay for the lack of preparation in the anarchy that resulted.

so go ahead and give us a non-contributory flame, show us just how shallow you are. It's really funny to watch.

[LRB]

And we return to our regularly scheduled posting after that brief break from reality.

[knowitall]

Hi. My name is drbio. Just agree with and I won't kill ya! I'm a mindless stepford ya know!

[kg_veteran]

Poster No. 1: I am right.

Poster No. 2: No, you're wrong, and it's ludicrous for you to believe you're right.

Poster No. 1: What's laughable is that you think I'm ludicrous when it's clear that you are ridiculous.

Poster No. 2: Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is the absurdity of your obtuse and obstructionist ramblings.

Poster No. 1: I know you are, but what am I?

Poster No. 2: I'm like rubber, you're like glue. Bounces off me and sticks to you!

Poster No. 1: I know you are, but what am I?

Poster No. 2: I'm like rubber, you're like glue. Bounces off me and sticks to you! No takebacks!

Poster No. 1: Moron.

Poster No. 2: Idiot.

Poster No. 1: Brain-dead loser.

Poster No. 2: Pitifully pathetic pathological pontificating punk!


And on and on and on...

[u2sarajevo]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Poster No. 1: I am right.

Poster No. 2: No, you're wrong, and it's ludicrous for you to believe you're right.

Poster No. 1: What's laughable is that you think I'm ludicrous when it's clear that you are ridiculous.

Poster No. 2: Ridiculous? What's ridiculous is the absurdity of your obtuse and obstructionist ramblings.

Poster No. 1: I know you are, but what am I?

Poster No. 2: I'm like rubber, you're like glue. Bounces off me and sticks to you!

Poster No. 1: I know you are, but what am I?

Poster No. 2: I'm like rubber, you're like glue. Bounces off me and sticks to you! No takebacks!

Poster No. 1: Moron.

Poster No. 2: Idiot.

Poster No. 1: Brain-dead loser.

Poster No. 2: Pitifully pathetic pathological pontificating punk!


And on and on and on...

Genius. I think anyone wanting to post a new thread should just copy and paste this. It will save all sorts of bandwidth if we do.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

when the shoe fits, which it surely does on your foot when you don't have it in your mouth (not often), wear it. and you do. fabulously.

what's laughable is your failure to understand the Kerry position. even after it was explained. but comphrehension isn't a strong trait of your posts.

I'll try and make it very simple for you, maybe you'll understand it that way. The vote was to authorize the use of force should force be needed. The vote was not if there should be a war on Iraq, not a vote to declare war, it was to allow for the President to use the force (I'm sure you don't know this, but the Pres doesn't have the power to launch war, that's a legislative power) if and when force was required.

Kerry has stated he would vote the same way today, allowing for that use of war should war be necessary, although Kerry sees that the need for war was nonexistant when we invaded Iraq, and the decision was a poor one as the international community was not supportive of our invasion, the invasion was not well planned for what resulted after our attack was over, and we are bearing the costs for those poor decisions in both monetary and also human ways. In addition, the Iraqis themselves continue to pay for the lack of preparation in the anarchy that resulted.

so go ahead and give us a non-contributory flame, show us just how shallow you are. It's really funny to watch.

This is interesting. WHY would he vote the same today? What would be the point? He didn't think that sadaam COULD get wmds' did he? He didn't think Sadaam was going to attack the US did he? WHY would he still vote the same? WHY would he give the president the authority to take out sadaam?? To what purpose?

Even when he's right he doesn't have a clue about why. ...

[Drbio]

Exactly. And Mavdoogie and his new groupie continue to ignore facts all while spewing the dimocrap party line of "because I say so - damn the facts and overwhelming evidence".

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
This is interesting. WHY would he vote the same today? What would be the point? He didn't think that sadaam COULD get wmds' did he? He didn't think Sadaam was going to attack the US did he? WHY would he still vote the same? WHY would he give the president the authority to take out sadaam?? To what purpose?

Even when he's right he doesn't have a clue about why. ...

Why? Easy, the resolution was to empower the Pres as he presumably worked at a) gaining consensus with our allies on the international approach, which of course could include military action (but not a necessity to use it) as the pres had been given that approval and b) focus the threat of military action on Hussein, in concept providing the stick that could be used. Neither of these are a certainty of war, they are preparation for war. In international relations the perception of a country's military ability is as valuable, sometimes even more valuable, then actually using it.

A perception that the Pres couldn't use force if needed would seriously undermine his ability to apply the threat. That is the "point", and the "purpose" of the authorization.

[LRB]

Damn Mavdog, you should go work for Kerry. Seriously. Your more adept at creating fence sitting policies than even Kerry and that's saying a lot. Any time Kerry acidentally would want to take a stand on an issue you could be there to set him straight. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: LRB
Damn Mavdog, you should go work for Kerry. Seriously. Your more adept at creating fence sitting policies than even Kerry and that's saying a lot. Any time Kerry acidentally would want to take a stand on an issue you could be there to set him straight. [img]i/expressions/anim_roller.gif[/img]

I can only surmise that you don't have any counter or disagreement with what I posted.

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

I can only surmise that you don't have any counter or disagreement with what I posted.

As usually you are wrong. However, I don't have time to respond right now. I'm working on my newest invention that I'm trying to sell to Matel (sp?), the toy company. It's a John Kerry doll. I call it a no action figure.

[Mavdog]

It's Mattel.
Add another one, the LRB sidestep doll. Instead of any answer, it changes the subject while it just dances around and around and around....

[LRB]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Why? Easy, the resolution was to empower the Pres as he presumably worked at a) gaining consensus with our allies on the international approach, which of course could include military action (but not a necessity to use it) as the pres had been given that approval and b) focus the threat of military action on Hussein, in concept providing the stick that could be used. Neither of these are a certainty of war, they are preparation for war. In international relations the perception of a country's military ability is as valuable, sometimes even more valuable, then actually using it.

A perception that the Pres couldn't use force if needed would seriously undermine his ability to apply the threat. That is the "point", and the "purpose" of the authorization.

Bush asked Kerry flat out whether Kerry would or would not have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now about WMD's. Kerry answered yes he would. Denial is just a big river in Egypt mavdog, you should really do something about yours.

[Drbio]

I just keep waiting for Mavdog to post:

This guy gets it...and then post the article about the RNC featured speaker being a democrat.


*waiting*

[Murphy3]

Originally posted by: LRB

Bush asked Kerry flat out whether Kerry would or would not have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now about WMD's. Kerry answered yes he would. Denial is just a big river in Egypt mavdog, you should really do something about yours.

As a registered member of neither the Democrats or the Republicans, I HAD decided to vote for Bush. However, after this joke, I'm forced to vote for Kerry. The joke just pushed me over the edge. It was more than I could take.

[Mavdog]

[quote]
Originally posted by: LRB

Bush asked Kerry flat out whether Kerry would or would not have invaded Iraq knowing what we know now about WMD's. Kerry answered yes he would. Denial is just a big river in Egypt mavdog, you should really do something about yours.

gee, I haven't heard that "denial" line since high school back in the 70's. it was sorta funny back then...

Whoops, you totally missed the exchange of this long range debate. Here's a couple of news stories on it:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I thought the United States needed to stand up to Saddam Hussein, and I voted to stand up to Saddam Hussein," Kerry told a crowd of about 15,000 at the University of Nevada.
"I thought we ought do it right. We ought to reach out to other countries. We ought to build an international coalition. We ought to exhaust the opportunities available to us," Kerry said. "I will never send you into war without a plan to win the peace."

"Working with other countries, building support, is not a sign of weakness," the Massachusetts senator added. "It is a sign of strength."
In response, Kerry said, “Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have.” But he faulted the use of that authority, saying Bush sent troops into war without a plan to win the peace.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush kicked off the renewed debate on Aug. 6 in New Hampshire, when he declared that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein and challenged Kerry to clear up his own position, as if he were across a stage in a debate hall.

"My opponent hasn't answered whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq," Bush said. "That's an important question and the American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer."

Kerry answered Bush three days later from the rim of the Grand Canyon. "Yes, I would have voted for the authority," he said. "I believe it was the right authority for a president to have, but I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout the campaign, effectively."

Then Kerry upped the stakes, saying he could significantly reduce U.S. troops in Iraq by August 2005.

The next day in Pensacola, Fla., Bush kept the focus on the Senate's vote to authorize the war to mock Kerry. "Now almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq and 200 days after switching positions to declare himself the antiwar candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush said.

Tuesday night at a raucous rally at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Kerry denied any inconsistency in his position and offered his clearest explanation yet of his vote to give Bush authority to attack.

"I thought the United States needed to stand up to Saddam Hussein, and I voted to stand up to Saddam Hussein," Kerry told the crowd of more than 10,000. "But I thought we ought to do it right. I thought we ought to reach out to other countries and that we ought to build an international coalition."

Both sides have strategic incentives to keep hashing over the decisions that led to war.

Polls taken after the Democratic convention showed that Kerry had gained ground on the question of who's better able to wage the war on terrorism.

Bush aides needed to knock down Kerry's gains, while using Kerry's explanations of his position on Iraq to emphasize one of their main themes: that Kerry lacks core convictions
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush, Kerry spar over Iraq

By THOMAS FITZGERALD
Knight Ridder Newspapers
EUGENE, Ore. - Firing sound bites at each other across several time zones, President Bush and Democratic nominee John Kerry engaged last week in an extraordinary drive-by debate on the Iraq war.

The sharp exchanges were unusually intense for August of an election year, and they foreshadowed what's likely to be a protracted fight through Nov. 2 on what's emerged as the campaign's central issue. Notably, unlike many Democrats taking refuge in the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry isn't saying his stand on Iraq was the result of Bush having misled him, but his relatively pro-war stance apparently isn't raising audible objections from his antiwar supporters.

Bush kicked off the renewed debate on Aug. 6 in New Hampshire, when he declared that the world was better off without Saddam Hussein and challenged Kerry to clear up his own position, as if he were across a stage in a debate hall.

"My opponent hasn't answered whether, knowing what we know now, he would have supported going into Iraq," Bush said. "That's an important question and the American people deserve a clear yes-or-no answer."

Kerry answered Bush three days later from the rim of the Grand Canyon. "Yes, I would have voted for the authority," he said. "I believe it was the right authority for a president to have, but I would have used that authority, as I have said throughout the campaign, effectively."

Then Kerry upped the stakes, saying he could significantly reduce U.S. troops in Iraq by August 2005 and asking four questions of Bush: "Why did he mislead America" about how he would prosecute the war? Why did he fail to plan for the post-invasion period? Why did he rely on faulty intelligence about Saddam's weapons capabilities? And why did he fail to bring in more allies?

The next day in Pensacola, Fla., Bush kept the focus on the Senate's vote to authorize the war to mock Kerry. "Now almost two years after he voted for the war in Iraq and 200 days after switching positions to declare himself the antiwar candidate, my opponent has found a new nuance," Bush said. "Thanks for clearing that up, Senator Kerry."

Tuesday night at a raucous rally at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, Kerry denied any inconsistency in his position and offered his clearest explanation yet of his vote to give Bush authority to attack.

"I thought the United States needed to stand up to Saddam Hussein, and I voted to stand up to Saddam Hussein," Kerry told the crowd of more than 10,000. "But I thought we ought to do it right. I thought we ought to reach out to other countries and that we ought to build an international coalition."

Kerry said the solution Iraq requires now is to start fresh with a new U.S. administration that can bring other nations into the rebuilding process.

"We need the statesmanship," Kerry said. "We need the patience. We need the maturity. We need the leadership. We need a new state of credibility that allows us to sit down with people who have always been our allies, who also have a stake in the outcome. We need to bring them to the table, get the target off American troops, get the hand out of the pocket of the American taxpayer and get our troops home."

Popping up in New Mexico 24 hours later, Bush took aim at Kerry's evolving promise to withdraw troops from Iraq, saying that strengthens the insurgents. In an interview with Knight Ridder just after the Democratic convention, Kerry said he could substantially reduce troops by the end of his four-year term, then a week later told National Public Radio that he could do it within six months of inauguration.

Both sides have strategic incentives to keep hashing over the decisions that led to war.

Polls taken after the Democratic convention showed that Kerry, who turned the event into a four-day infomercial about his Vietnam service, had gained ground on Bush on the question of who's better able to wage the war on terrorism and serve as commander in chief. That's the president's greatest political strength, polls show, and Kerry was eroding it.

Bush aides needed to knock down Kerry's gains, while using Kerry's evolving explanations of his position on Iraq to emphasize one of their main themes: that Kerry lacks core convictions.

The war has caused political problems for Kerry from the beginning of his campaign. He voted in October 2002 to give the president authority to use military force against Saddam, but the next year he voted "no" on an $87 billion appropriation to fund the occupation.

Kerry said the second vote was a protest against the precipitous way Bush went to war, but Republicans - and some Democrats - say Kerry was tacking into political winds. At the time, former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean was leading the race for the Democratic nomination with a passionate anti-war message, and Kerry's campaign was struggling.

The sizable antiwar wing of the Democratic Party has never quite trusted Kerry on the issue, though most have swallowed their concerns out of a desire to beat Bush.

As Kerry tried to change the subject to the economy Thursday, Vice President Dick Cheney went to Dayton, Ohio, to rip him for pledging to wage a more "sensitive" war on terrorism, remarks Kerry made Aug. 5 at a convention of minority journalists. Kerry had pledged to wage a smarter, more strategic, and - yes - more sensitive war.

"Those who threaten us and kill innocents around the world do not need to be treated more sensitively," Cheney said. "They need to be destroyed."

Kerry fired back Thursday night at a rally in Republican-leaning southwest Oregon.

"I defended this country as a young man," he said, "when others chose not to." Cheney received several draft deferments during Vietnam, and Bush served stateside in the Texas Air National Guard.

A sampling of opinion from people at Kerry's Oregon rally revealed no criticism of his evolving stand on Iraq.

"I think he's a diplomat, a person who realizes it's OK based on new information to change his mind," said Karen Myers, 56, a retired teacher from Eugene. "Stubbornness is not a virtue." She wants the troops home as soon as possible and trusts Kerry to do it. "I'm not one in the know, but he'll do it as fast as he can," Myers said. "He's been to war, and he knows what it is like."

Georgia Barton, 65, said she didn't think the Iraq invasion was justified because Iraq hadn't attacked the United States, but she's convinced Kerry wouldn't have gone to war.

"Kerry would have listened to the rest of the world," Barton said.