Hutchison says she wouldn't have supported Iraq invasion if she'd known there were no WMDs

SAN ANTONIO — In a debate telecast statewide, Republican U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison repeated her call Thursday for the United States to maintain its commitment to stabilizing Iraq rather than "cutting and running because times are rough."

Hutchison, a senator for more than 13 years, also said she would not have voted for the United States to invade the country in 2003 if she'd known there were no weapons of mass destruction there.

Responding to a reporter's question, Hutchison said: "If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction, which was a key reason I voted to go in there, I would not vote to go into Iraq the way we did.

"And I have to say I don't think the president would have asked for that vote either," Hutchison said, saying President Bush was "trying to make sure that America was not hit with another 9/11, with a weapon of mass destruction."

Democrat Barbara Ann Radnofsky seized on Hutchison's reflection, suggesting that Hutchison was among senators who failed to read intelligence information that would have illuminated the likelihood that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

"What a telling, telling comment from my colleague," said Radnofsky, who favors setting a timetable for taking U.S. troops out of Iraq.

Hutchison said it would be irresponsible to withdraw because Iraq has become "a terrorist breeding ground." Referring to Radnofsky, she added: "This is a very big point of difference between us."

The hourlong debate was historic from its start because this year marks the first time two women represent the major parties in a Texas U.S. Senate race. The pair met for the first time Thursday in the lobby of KLRN-TV, where the debate co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Texas was taped shortly before being broadcast statewide on public TV stations and C-SPAN.

The two were joined by Scott Lanier Jameson, 40, the Libertarian nominee who closed with a plea to voters to consider all Libertarian candidates.

Jameson expressed discomfort with the U.S. government labeling other nations such as Iran as enemies.

"It makes us sound like we're developing a checklist of who we're going to take on next," he said. "It's almost as if we're challenging them."

Hutchison, who has been the front-runner, fell into no outright gaffes in the nine-question event, with the only surprise being her hindsight on Iraq.

She and Radnofsky, a Houston lawyer making her first bid for elective office, vigorously spelled out differences they have aired during the campaign.

Radnofsky criticized Hutchison for voting to build what she dubbed an impractical 700-mile fence along stretches of the U.S.-Mexico border. She said that, unlike Hutchison, she favors revising a law creating a prescription drug benefit for senior citizens so the government can negotiate lower drug prices with manufacturers.

Hutchison defended an immigration proposal she has outlined with Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana, that envisions the government establishing a more secure border before launching a system requiring illegal immigrants to leave the United States and apply at out-of-country centers for permission to return to work here. She called it a "starting point" toward compromise in Congress.

Jameson said that if a wall is going to be built, it should be around flood-prone New Orleans.

Hutchison, 63, filled the Senate seat long held by Lloyd Bentsen in 1993. She won election to her first full term a year later.

The former state treasurer and Texas House member has frequently said her dream is to serve as Texas governor, although she has passed up chances to run, including last year when she yielded to Gov. Rick Perry, who is seeking re-election next month.

Hutchison said last month that she decided to seek one more term only because of her seniority on the Appropriations Committee and within the Republican Party ranks.

"I've been able to do many things for Texas that would be hard to accomplish as a junior member," Hutchison said. "But this is certainly going to be my last term."

Hutchison conceded that she has backed off on a pledge in the early 1990s to serve no more than two terms, but said she still supports amending the Constitution to hold all senators to limits.

Radnofsky, 50, left her partner position at Vinson & Elkins to campaign. Eclipsed by Hutchison in fundraising, she's tried to make up for the gulf by enlisting volunteers, having a frequently updated Web site and stressing a 40-page comparison of her positions on issues to what she considers Hutchison's poor record.

Radnofsky, who wore a purple blouse, said: "What this country needs for Texas is leadership that's new and fresh, that stands about 5-foot-9 and looks good in purple."

I don't give a shit about WMDs. I would not have supported the invasion of Iraq if I knew that Bush would permit the armchair pussies in the Pentagon to neuter our troops on the ground, instead of letting them do their job: target, kill and capture the enemy--without mercy, without restraint. Instead we have soldiers used like Avon ladies, knocking on doors instead of kicking them in. We see Navy Corpsmen stabbing the Marines in the back and prosecuting them...undermining morale across the board. We saw Americans murdered, charred and dragged through the streets by soulless animals...and did not retaliate. We saw the criminal Al Sadr acting with impunity, instead of hanging from a rope, as MacArthur would have done from day one. We saw our men going door to door in Fallujah...putting them in grave danger in a stupidly misplaced concern over "civilian" casualities. We see CNN run a video for three days of a soldier shooting a Fallujah cochroach who was reaching for his gun...and the disloyal faggots in the Pentagon actually investigated him! Where were the MEN in this government to tell the media "that terrorist got what was coming to him. We will not second-guess our men" Nope. Nothing but treachery from a Pentagon with no honor. And now we see CNN reporter/terrorists filming enemy snipers targeting Americans--these CNN traitors should be fired upon for doing this!

No, I would never have supported this war if I knew that we would hold our men back, treat them like criminals, handle the enemy with kid gloves, obsess over the vile creatures of the "Arab street", and give the media carte blanche to betray our fighting men.

Source:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_War
After the 1991 Gulf War, then-United States Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney reported that "Saddam Hussein's offensive military capability, his capacity to threaten his neighbors, has been virtually eliminated." Yet there was still much concern over Iraq's weapons programs, so United Nations Resolutions were passed to impose sanctions on the regime of Saddam Hussein until it was verified that its weapons of mass destruction were destroyed.

From April 1991 and the formation of UNSCOM, Iraq had been under ongoing pressure by the United Nations to declare and destroy its biological and chemical weapons. In total the UN had passed 13 resolutions calling for complete access of UNSCOM and IAEA officials to locate and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.[17]

Starting in the aftermath of the war and continuing until 1998, UNSCOM inspected Iraq, locating and destroying large quantities of chemical agents, nuclear-related equipment and other prohibited materials.[17][18][19] Conflict between Iraq and the UN developed during 1998, however, which led to the withdrawal of the UN and the authorization of a bombing campaign by the Clinton administration to "degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors".[20][21][22]

Furthermore, in November 1998, at the urging of President Bill Clinton, the U.S. House of Representatives and the US Senate passed the "Iraq Liberation Act of 1998," [23] which "declare[d] that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime from power in Iraq and to replace it with a democratic government." President Clinton signed this bill into law. It also stated that "nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces," instead calling for support of Iraqi opposition groups."

Beginning with a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 12, 2002 President George W. Bush began a public campaign to convince the world that Saddam Hussein was violating both the commitments he had made at the end of the First Gulf War and which prior UN resolutions dealt with: weapons of mass destruction, human rights, Kuwaiti prisoners of war, terrorism, long range SCUD missiles, the U.N. Oil-for-Food Programme and allowing UN inspectors to return to Iraq after their removal in 1998.[26]

Some members of the Bush administration implied a link between the Hussein government to the September 11, 2001 attacks, partly on the basis of an alleged meeting in Prague in April 2001 involving an Iraqi intelligence agent and other evidence.[27][28]. Both a Senate Select Committee and the 9/11 Commission failed to uncover convincing evidence of such a link, and specifically found no evidence of an Atta meeting in Prague.[29][30][31] (See also Atta in Prague and Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda).

On October 10, 2002 the 107th Congress of the United States passed HJ Res 114 titled "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002." Among the reasons noted in the Congressional resolution authorizing force were Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441,[32] aid to terrorists (PALF),[33][34] a 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush (George W. Bush's father)[35] and the Emir of Kuwait, in addition to violations of the no-fly zones.[36]

On February 5, 2003 Colin Powell attempted to convince the UN Security Council that Saddam Hussein's regime posed a significant and timely threat to international security.[45] The Bush administration also claimed that Iraq was allied with al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, including the Palestinian Arab Liberation Front (PALF), Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah.[46][47][48][49] Bush administration officials also claimed that Iraq was developing nuclear weapons.[50]

I know, YOUNG Scholar, that you could easily look this up on the Internet and discover for yourself the stated reasons. You can also find that the chief argument against the Bush Admin was "war for oil" and only when no WMD were found, was it "Bush Lied".

But, then, YOUNG Scholar, your probably already know these things, don't you?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.