MyDD :: Daschle Says The Senate Was Lied To On Iraq

Daschle Says The Senate Was Lied To On Iraq

by Scott Shields, Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 04:01:44 PM EST

When I saw the headline yesterday that Tom Daschle was calling for withdrawal from Iraq, I have to admit I rolled my eyes and chuckled a bit. Daschle wants to run for President in 2008, but I can't imagine he's got much of a chance. Especially in recent days, Harry Reid has shown how hard Daschle really could and should have fought the Bush administration when he led the Democrats in the Senate. I can't imagine Daschle getting very far because to many Democrats, he's the face of capitulation. But he was spun so hard by the Republicans that, in many other eyes, he's the face of obstruction. Neither bodes well for him.

However, as the leader of the Senate Democrats during the lead up to the Iraq War, Daschle is extremely well positioned to let the cat out of the bag on the administration's lies. That's why today's 'Quote of the Day' at Political Wire caught my eye. Many pro-war Republicans have said the Democrats who voted for the war don't have any right to criticize the war now. We certainly heard that charge levelled at John Kerry during the election. But apparently Tom Daschle's got something to say about that.

Speaking Wednesday at Northwestern University, Daschle also said he had been given "misleading information" about Iraq's weapons before the war, but said he could not go into specifics.

"I wish I could share with you the misleading information I personally was provided in September and October of 2002," he said in remarks scheduled for delivery at Northwestern University in Evanston.

The misrepresentations, Daschle said, underscore the need for Congress to repair the nation's foreign policy initiatives in order to restore the public's trust in the use of U.S. military power.

Evidence is coming out at an increasing pace that the White House presented evidence to the Congress that they knew was false in order to justify the war in Iraq. This is no longer a matter of receiving and believing bad intelligence. This is a matter of lying the nation into war. That is why it's so important that Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats forced the closed session the other day. If the White House lied to Congress, 'Part II' of the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into pre-war intelligence should uncover it.

So what if the White House lied to Congress in making the case for war in Iraq? Here's what former Nixon counsel John Dean wrote on the matter in 2003 at FindLaw.com.

Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony "to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose."

I'm of the mindset that impeaching Bush would not be a good thing. It will leave voters with a sickening feeling that impeachments will now become the norm for our Presidents. However, as the old saying goes, if you do the crime, you should do the time. With thousands dead because of this administration's lies, I see no reason they should be an exception.

Tags: Democrats (all tags)

Permalink :: 25 Comments :: Post a Comment

Seriously.... (none / 0)

I'm beginning to think the Republicans did us a favor by defeating him.

by bushsucks on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 04:06:42 PM EST

This reminds me of Senator Graham... (none / 0)

of Florida going around saying essentially the same thing about 9-11 documents.

"I wish I could share more..."

On one level, I'm glad there is some discussion of this, but on another, it's just more frustration.

It seems like the only "classified" information that gets out of the Bush White House is that involving their enemies.

I'm really skeptical that a lot of what is being hidden from our view is really all that sensitive.

Once again, Bush is protected by secrecy. History will record this American public as being the most gullible in our nation's history.

New on EWM: Kevin Bacon to play Libby in upcoming "Six Degrees of Scooter"

It's `Dumb and Dumber' meets `All the President's Men.'

by The Muse on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 04:10:31 PM EST

Re: This reminds me of Senator Graham... (none / 0)

i miss bob graham. what a great guy. something he said in an NPR interview still sticks with me, though. i think he said it maybe two months before he dropped out, that he could practically guarantee that we'd be hit again by terrorists within 5 years. he was in a position to know. scared me shitless to hear him say that.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:20:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This reminds me of Senator Graham... (none / 0)

I like Graham too. Historically, he was too moderate for my taste. However, he was one of the few moderates who acted honorably on Iraq.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:05:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: This reminds me of Senator Graham... (none / 0)

Chew on this, Andy: I wish we had half a dozen Bob Grahams in the U.S. Senate right now. They can get elected in states where Barbara Boxers can't. I'll take a good man or woman I disagree with at points over the Republican slime molds that predominate.

Which is why I'll swallow over Bob Casey in Pennsylvania and am downright enthusiastic about Paul Hackett in Ohio. If Hackett wins, he'll be there at least three terms.

Let's save our intramural squabbling until we get a comfortable majority at the very least.

by InigoMontoya on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 09:22:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Bob Casey? (none / 0)

Which is why I'll swallow over Bob Casey in Pennsylvania

That's a non-sequitur. There is absolutely no reason to support Bob Casey. He's the weakest candidate and the most likely to lose.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 01:13:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Daschle (none / 0)

Maybe he is running in 2008?

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 04:29:56 PM EST

Re: Daschle (none / 0)

He will be. He apparently made these remarks before heading off to Iowa.

by Scott Shields on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 04:58:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Daschle (none / 0)

That would help with the midwestern vote...

I'm a big Dashcle fan but I've already made my 2008 decision and now I'm focusing on 2006.

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 06:21:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Daschle (none / 0)

Daschle would be excellent for some position when we retake the White House. Possibly chief of staff? He should be an expert on political machinery on the hill.

by nemodem on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 09:55:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Daschle (none / 0)

even a cabinet position.

Most likely the campaign manager will be CoS

The Kentucky Democrat

by kydem on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 02:21:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

To be fair to Daschle (none / 0)

He was dealing with a very different political situation, and a different feeling among his caucus. While I do think he could have fought harder, Reid's got a much stronger hand to play with than did Tom.

by BriVT on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:09:24 PM EST

daschle for president? (none / 0)

damn scott, i think i just threw up in my mouth a little.

(sorry, i couldn't help it)

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:19:07 PM EST

Re: daschle for president? (none / 0)

I think Tom Daschle would make a great high school principal. And that's about as far as I would ever imagine taking it in terms of executive positions I might endorse him for.

by Scott Shields on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:26:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL (none / 0)

i'm sure he's a real nice guy, i just don't see him as possessing any leadership qualities.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!

by annatopia on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:30:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: daschle for president? (none / 0)

He is running for president. BARF.

Good news though, he will lose.

by DaveB on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 08:50:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How About An Opposition Candidate? (3.00 / 1)

Wouldn't that be a good idea?

Vote for an opposition candidate in 2008?

Someone who calls the Iraq War a mistake, and declares it over and done.

Who admits we aren't ever gonna get that oil by the use of guns.

Anybody seen a candidate like that?

Anyone?

by Antifa on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:20:02 PM EST

Re: How About An Opposition Candidate? (3.00 / 1)

That would be Russ Feingold.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 01:09:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How About An Opposition Candidate? (none / 0)

Yes, you are 100% correct.

NOT Wesley Clark, NOT Hillary Clinton, nor any of the other "likely" nor "possible" candidates for 2008.

CANNOT understand why Dems are not wrapping their heads around this important FACT!

by nemodem on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 09:52:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Impeaching presidents as a norm? (none / 0)

My only concern, to tell the truth, is , can you impeach enough members of the white house to change things? If youleave Karl Rove in there, for ex. , would you be changing anything? Seriously.

Please note that the other shoe never fell on Clinton and he finished his term normally.

by turnerbroadcasting on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 05:48:07 PM EST

Lying Not Really An Excuse (3.00 / 1)

While Im sure that Daschle is telling the truth that he was lied to about WMDs before the vote, that is almost irrelevant. The fact is, the Bush Administration made it "perfectly clear," to use an old Nixonian phrase, that they were hell-bent to invade Iraq before the vote was ever taken. I specifically remember Cheney, who was already clearly the driving force of the Administration, had already came out in favor of invasion. And remember King Hussein of Jordan made a statement over the summer of 2002 that he was told then that we had already decided to invade Iraq. Thus, Bush's whole bit with seeming to support UN inspections was a charade. I understood this at the time (also believing that Iraq had WMDs) and so should the Senate Dems; in fact some did.
The Democrats positions should have been to force inspections, not to ok war.

So, Daschle's whole "excuse" carries no weight for me.

Andy Katz

by Andy Katz on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 07:11:47 PM EST

Re: Lying Not Really An Excuse (none / 0)

I think the important point is less letting Daschle or any other Democrat in Congress off the hook for voting for the war and more exposing the lies that the administration told not only the American people, but the American Congress in justifying the war.

by Scott Shields on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 11:24:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Zell (none / 0)

I think what we're seeing reflects that Zell Miller is OUT more than a reflection on Daschle. With Zell gone any leader of the Senate has more room to oppose without a "Democrat" like Zell ready to undercut everything.

Just the last few days:

Rule can head off dirty tricks at CIA, "Suddenly, an opportunity appears for the agent to undercut the national leadership. ... Some absurdly claim that Plame had nothing to do with her husband's political activities against President Bush."

Zell Miller to speak at Right to Life event

Power Line: My favorite Democrat, part 21

-- Seeing the Forest

by davej on Thu Nov 03, 2005 at 08:00:31 PM EST

What else has Harry Reid done? (none / 0)

Harry Reid has shown how hard Daschle really could and should have fought the Bush administration when he led the Democrats in the Senate.

The cheerleading for Harry Reid is baffling. This is his very first act of opposition all year. I understand encouraging Reid to continue down the path to opposition, but I see very little or no improvement over Daschle's record of conciliation.

by Gary Boatwright on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 01:18:01 AM EST

Your Advice Against Impeachment: A Disservice (none / 0)

I cannot begin to express, strongly enough, my disagreement with you on your comments about impeaching Bush for his "high crimes". You indicated that most voters would just see impeachment as something that happens to presidents when they become unpopular. That is what happened in 1998 to Bill Clinton. It is not happening now.

We all know why Bush should be impeached; we all know why Cheney should be impeached as well.

South Africa needed a Truth & Reconciliation Commission to move from an era of evil to a better time. So will we.

We NEED to not only impeach Bush and Cheney, we need to remove them from office, and if it only happens at 11:59am on January 20, 2009, it will be worth it. We need to tell the next President, and generations of future presidents, that the American people will no longer tolerate the crime, corruption, and cronyism of the Bush years. We need to tell generations of young Americans that they cannot "get away with it".

Finally, both domestically, and in our foreign relations, we need to renew the association of the name, "United States of America", with truth and justice.

I am under no delusion that either Bush or Cheney will actually serve time in jail. Suggesting from your prominent podium that they will, and that therefore a more likely sanction against them should not be attempted, is a disservice.

Why do people like Bush, Cheney, WorldCom's Bernard Ebbers, Tyco's Dennis Kozlowski conduct themselves as they do? Hubris.

They start wars that kill thousands of brave young Americans, and they steal the pensions of hard-working American workers, because they have developed the notion that they can get away with it.

As they move into their post-presidential years, Bush and Cheney want nothing more than to be the subject of mass genuflection.

We know they are not going to be sent to jail, in all likelihood. Let us impeach them both, a double-header impeachment, and lets us make those two pieces of filth the first actually removed from public office for their "high crimes" (and their treason, and the misdemeanors they have committed in office).

Then, instead of being the subject of mass genuflection, they will be hounded by the derision of their peers, and by the derision of the American people, for the rest of their days.

by jfrankesq on Fri Nov 04, 2005 at 08:47:27 AM EST

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.