Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions
Democrats Who Opposed War Move Into Key Positions
>
>New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder
>
>Monday December 04, 2006
>By Walter Pincus
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>
>Monday, December 4, 2006; A04
>
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301108.html>
>
>Although given little public credit at the time, or
>since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and
>voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave
>President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have
>turned out to be correct in their warnings about the
>problems a war would create.
>
>With the Democrats taking over control of the House next
>January, the views that some voiced during two days of
>debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of
>those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They
>include not only members of the new House leadership but
>also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed
>Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select
>Committee on Intelligence.
>
>Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the
>Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats
>who predicted during the House floor debate that "the
>outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the
>hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited
>his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with
>retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar,
>both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command --
>a part of which is in Spratt's district. "They made the
>point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the
>peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us,"
>Spratt said.
>
>Spratt recently looked back at his resolution, which
>would have required Bush to come back to Congress before
>launching an attack. It was defeated 270 to 158. He
>recalled that extended hearings were held before the
>Persian Gulf War but that nothing similar preceded the
>vote on the 2002 resolution. "I remember we talked this
>time about how we got to get answers before this train
>leaves the station," Spratt said.
>
>The incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton
>(D-Mo.), spoke in support of Spratt's amendment,
>stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the
>Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass
>and armed conflict is necessary." Skelton had written
>Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to
>say that "I have no doubt that our military would
>decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But
>like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road,
>we must consider what we would do after we caught it."
>
>Skelton went on to note the "extreme difficulty of
>occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its
>balkanized ethnic tensions and its isolated economic
>system." He also warned that Bush's postwar strategy
>must "take seriously" the possibility that a replacement
>regime "might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading
>to civil unrest and even anarchy."
>
>Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the
>Appropriations Committee, was among the group that
>organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor
>preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed
>after listening to State Department officials. He
>recalled recently that an amendment by Rep. Barbara T.
>Lee (D-Calif.) that would have delayed taking action
>until inspectors from the United Nations completed their
>work "made sense, but there was no prayer it would
>pass." It got 72 votes.
>
>Obey said Spratt's amendment was the only approach "that
>could gather critical mass, and that's what most of us
>in the caucus settled on."
>
>The number of House Democrats who supported Spratt "was
>a remarkable achievement," Obey said, "given it meant
>opposing the president in the wake of 9/11." Obey's
>district was 70 percent in favor of going into Iraq, he
>said.
>
>On the House floor more than four years ago, Lee told
>colleagues: "Our own intelligence agencies report that
>there is currently little chance of chemical and
>biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or
>territories. But they emphasize that an attack could
>become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is
>about to be attacked." That information, she said, came
>from material that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet had
>provided to the Senate.
>
>Lee also raised questions in the floor debate that
>remain unanswered. "What is our objective here," she
>asked four years ago, "regime change or elimination of
>weapons of mass destruction?"
>
>Looking forward now to next year and a Democratic
>majority in the House, Lee said, "Those of us who early
>on understood have many ideas of what to do now and how
>to get out of Iraq."
>
>Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who did not belong to a
>committee with national security jurisdiction, was among
>the lawmakers who talked on the House floor about what
>turned out to be the real issues in Iraq. She spoke of
>the "postwar challenges," saying that "there is no
>history of democratic government in Iraq," that its
>"economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of
>war and sanctions" and that rebuilding would take "a
>great deal of money."
>
>Baldwin four years ago asked questions that are being
>widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep
>100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability
>there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we
>don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle
>East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists
>take over Iraq?"
>
>Baldwin said recently that she put together her
>statement after reading public commentary and talking
>with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what
>would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake
>lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find
>weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an
>exit strategy; it was such a blank."
>
>The day after the House vote, The Washington Post
>recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the
>final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for
>his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who
>said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S.
>soldiers did not have adequate protection against
>biological weapons.
>
>"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.
>
>Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of
>the administration's "rush to war," with only 14
>colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the
>reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those
>voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in
>the two Post stories about passage of the resolution
>that day.
>
>New Committee Chairmen Had Warned of Postwar Disorder
>
>Monday December 04, 2006
>By Walter Pincus
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>
>Monday, December 4, 2006; A04
>
><http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/03/AR2006120301108.html>
>
>Although given little public credit at the time, or
>since, many of the 126 House Democrats who spoke out and
>voted against the October 2002 resolution that gave
>President Bush authority to wage war against Iraq have
>turned out to be correct in their warnings about the
>problems a war would create.
>
>With the Democrats taking over control of the House next
>January, the views that some voiced during two days of
>debate four years ago are worth recalling, since many of
>those lawmakers will move into positions of power. They
>include not only members of the new House leadership but
>also the incoming chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed
>Services, Budget and Judiciary committees and the Select
>Committee on Intelligence.
>
>Rep. John M. Spratt Jr. (S.C.), a senior member of the
>Armed Services Committee, was one of several Democrats
>who predicted during the House floor debate that "the
>outcome after the conflict is actually going to be the
>hardest part, and it is far less certain." He credited
>his views in part to what he heard over breakfasts with
>retired generals Anthony C. Zinni and Joseph P. Hoar,
>both of whom had led the U.S. Army's Central Command --
>a part of which is in Spratt's district. "They made the
>point: We do not want to win this war, only to lose the
>peace and swell the ranks of terrorists who hate us,"
>Spratt said.
>
>Spratt recently looked back at his resolution, which
>would have required Bush to come back to Congress before
>launching an attack. It was defeated 270 to 158. He
>recalled that extended hearings were held before the
>Persian Gulf War but that nothing similar preceded the
>vote on the 2002 resolution. "I remember we talked this
>time about how we got to get answers before this train
>leaves the station," Spratt said.
>
>The incoming Armed Services chairman, Rep. Ike Skelton
>(D-Mo.), spoke in support of Spratt's amendment,
>stressing the need for "a plan for rebuilding of the
>Iraqi government and society, if the worst comes to pass
>and armed conflict is necessary." Skelton had written
>Bush a month earlier, after a White House meeting, to
>say that "I have no doubt that our military would
>decisively defeat Iraq's forces and remove Saddam. But
>like the proverbial dog chasing the car down the road,
>we must consider what we would do after we caught it."
>
>Skelton went on to note the "extreme difficulty of
>occupying Iraq with its history of autocratic rule, its
>balkanized ethnic tensions and its isolated economic
>system." He also warned that Bush's postwar strategy
>must "take seriously" the possibility that a replacement
>regime "might be rejected by the Iraqi people, leading
>to civil unrest and even anarchy."
>
>Rep. David R. Obey (Wis.), who will chair the
>Appropriations Committee, was among the group that
>organized the Democrats. He spoke then about poor
>preparation for postwar Iraq, a concern he developed
>after listening to State Department officials. He
>recalled recently that an amendment by Rep. Barbara T.
>Lee (D-Calif.) that would have delayed taking action
>until inspectors from the United Nations completed their
>work "made sense, but there was no prayer it would
>pass." It got 72 votes.
>
>Obey said Spratt's amendment was the only approach "that
>could gather critical mass, and that's what most of us
>in the caucus settled on."
>
>The number of House Democrats who supported Spratt "was
>a remarkable achievement," Obey said, "given it meant
>opposing the president in the wake of 9/11." Obey's
>district was 70 percent in favor of going into Iraq, he
>said.
>
>On the House floor more than four years ago, Lee told
>colleagues: "Our own intelligence agencies report that
>there is currently little chance of chemical and
>biological attack from Saddam Hussein on U.S. forces or
>territories. But they emphasize that an attack could
>become much more likely if Iraq believes that it is
>about to be attacked." That information, she said, came
>from material that then-CIA Director George J. Tenet had
>provided to the Senate.
>
>Lee also raised questions in the floor debate that
>remain unanswered. "What is our objective here," she
>asked four years ago, "regime change or elimination of
>weapons of mass destruction?"
>
>Looking forward now to next year and a Democratic
>majority in the House, Lee said, "Those of us who early
>on understood have many ideas of what to do now and how
>to get out of Iraq."
>
>Rep. Tammy Baldwin (Wis.), who did not belong to a
>committee with national security jurisdiction, was among
>the lawmakers who talked on the House floor about what
>turned out to be the real issues in Iraq. She spoke of
>the "postwar challenges," saying that "there is no
>history of democratic government in Iraq," that its
>"economy and infrastructure is in ruins after years of
>war and sanctions" and that rebuilding would take "a
>great deal of money."
>
>Baldwin four years ago asked questions that are being
>widely considered today: "Are we prepared to keep
>100,000 or more troops in Iraq to maintain stability
>there? If we don't, will a new regime emerge? If we
>don't, will Iran become the dominant power in the Middle
>East? . . . If we don't, will Islamic fundamentalists
>take over Iraq?"
>
>Baldwin said recently that she put together her
>statement after reading public commentary and talking
>with like-minded colleagues and her staff about what
>would come next. "A vote like this, I didn't undertake
>lightly -- I almost fully expected they would find
>weapons there," she said. "But we hadn't heard about an
>exit strategy; it was such a blank."
>
>The day after the House vote, The Washington Post
>recorded that 126 House Democrats voted against the
>final resolution. None was quoted giving a reason for
>his or her vote except for Rep. Joe Baca (Calif.), who
>said a military briefing had disclosed that U.S.
>soldiers did not have adequate protection against
>biological weapons.
>
>"As a veteran, that's what hit me the hardest," he said.
>
>Lee was described as giving a "fiery denunciation" of
>the administration's "rush to war," with only 14
>colleagues in the House chamber to hear her. None of the
>reasons she gave to justify her concerns, nor those
>voiced by other Democratic opponents, was reported in
>the two Post stories about passage of the resolution
>that day.
posted by peaceandjustice2005 at 4:11 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home