Wolfson's Hardball claim on IWR debunked

Unspinning Howard Wolfson

{Last week} on Hardball, MSNBC's Chris Matthews had the following exchange with Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign (my transcript below the video):

Matthews: How would you describe position in voting to authorize the war in Iraq believing we weren't going to war, that Bush really didn't intend to go to war. Was that naive?

Wolfson: Look, she's taken responsibility for the vote. She's been asked about this...

Mathews: Wouldn't you call that naive to believe...

Wolfson: No...

Matthews: ...that we're not going to war when everybody thought we were going to war? I thought we were going to war.

Wolfson: I guess 80 percent of the country was naive then.

Matthews: They didn't think Bush would take us to war?

Wolfson: I think people were, believed George Bush was going to do what he said he was going to do, which was to try diplomacy. And he didn't.

...Did 80% of Americans believe that President Bush would "try diplomacy" in an effort to avoid a war with Iraq?

Not exactly.

I checked the Iraq archives at the Polling Report. Most of the questions asked in late 2002 focused on whether and under what conditions Americans would support going to war. However, a CNN/USA Today/Gallup survey of 1,017 adults conducted November 22-24, 2002 (a month after the vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq), showed that a majority of Americans believed President Bush had "already decided" to invade Iraq:

58% - Bush has already decided to invade
38% - Bush has not yet decided whether to invade
4% - No opinion

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/unspinning_howard_wolfson.php

No way!

He's not looking for your vote, HRC is.

This is my problem with HRC. Her IWR spin is only going to be accepted by people who don't know how to think.

What about the rest of us?

unless they thought that they groups being formed by the administration to formulate plans for the reconstruction of Iraq were just playing footsie.

I saw Pres. Clinton speak the night before the Senate voted on the IWR. He referred to going to war, not going to the UN.

Ya know Wolfson is paid to spin for Senator Clinton, but I still hate liars.

maybe it was the painkillers? that would be a good alibi.

Anyone who would willingly give up their constitutional power to BUSH regarding anything, let alone going to WAR, doesn't deserve to be president, is not competent to be president.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/cui%20bono/7

That being said, Edwards is getting my attention the last few days with his speaking out about our whole system. So I'm in a bit of a dilemma as to whether or not I can vote for him.

That's my impression. I need to start paying closer attention, since my guy (Gore) is evidently not going to run.

and trust that he has learned and will not do that again. He certainly sounds like it. Of course he would be president so he won't come up with the same situation, but I think his eyes are wide open now to what the circumstances were and how they were manipulated in the whole post 9/11 era.

And he has not run away from his mistake on the IWR. He repeatedly has mentioned it to audiences during his presidential campaign and while campaigning for Democrats across the nation in 2006 (most notably Ned Lamont. Edwards was one of the few major Dems--and the only "top-tier" candidate--who did not endorse Holy Joe and he went to CT to campaign for Lamont in the general election. In contrast, some others, including the other "top-tier" candidates, only gave lip service to supporting Lamont. They were willing to travel across the country for Dems but not Lamont...). It starts with him saying "I was wrong." How many politicians would be willing to write an op-ed in the Washington Post and so directly admit they were wrong on such a big issue?

==By John Edwards

Sunday, November 13, 2005; Page B07

I was wrong.==

==It was a mistake to vote for this war in 2002. I take responsibility for that mistake. It has been hard to say these words because those who didn't make a mistake -- the men and women of our armed forces and their families -- have performed heroically and paid a dear price.==

==While we can't change the past, we need to accept responsibility, because a key part of restoring America's moral leadership is acknowledging when we've made mistakes or been proven wrong -- and showing that we have the creativity and guts to make it right.==

==First, we need to remove the image of an imperialist America from the landscape of Iraq. American contractors who have taken unfair advantage of the turmoil in Iraq need to leave Iraq. If that means Halliburton subsidiary KBR, then KBR should go. Such departures, and the return of the work to Iraqi businesses, would be a real statement about our hopes for the new nation.==

==America's leaders -- all of us -- need to accept the responsibility we each carry for how we got to this place. More than 2,000 Americans have lost their lives in this war, and more than 150,000 are fighting there today. They and their families deserve honesty from our country's leaders. And they also deserve a clear plan for a way out.==

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/11/AR2005111101623.html

Important statement by JE.

at least apologizing. and some of the other things he has been bringing to the table.

But even if some wonderful person is president, it is the job of congress to take the nation to war or not, it is not the president's decision, and it is not even correct, in my view, for congress to simply cede the job to the president. that is just a general rule.

but in this particular case, many of us saw the nightmare ahead, and saw that bush had decided to go to war, that he was lying his way into a needless war. and even by then, had not most Dems already understood that bush was not to be trusted? that his judgment was terrible?

out of fear. They put their own presidential ambitions above the right decision for the country.

At least Edwards and Kerry have admitted their mistake and they have to live with the consequences of their blind ambition and or stupidity. HRC has not and I believe she will ultimately pay the price. Not sure about Biden and Dodd.

And Obama called her out on it! :hi:

"(People) believed George Bush was going to do what he said he was going to do, which was to try diplomacy."

Who believed that Bush would "try diplomacy". Is this a joke?

Remember it was 2002, not 2005 or later when *'s credibility was finally gone for good. There was still a lot of fear and willingness to follow any leader available.

The problem is beyond that point in time, which is actually an argument that the American people are tired of.

The problem is that Hillary's Iraq policy was hazy and confusing long after that vote. In late 2003 she was saying we needed to "stay the course", which were the exact words Bush was using at the time.

http://www.papillonsartpalace.com/clintIon.htm

If people understood it, her candidacy would be in serious trouble. See McCain.

(Not that her position is the same as McCain's. I'm just trying use him as an extreme example of what happens to candidacies that say Bush is right on Iraq.)

and irresponsible than Obama. How stupid does Wolfson think people are? Why would he lie about something that anybody can verify.

If anyone thought he was going to use diplomacy was naive.

The more I hear and see her the less I like her. Edwards is our only real shot to win back the White House. I respect him for admitting a mistake. Hillary on the other hand is like Bush on this- she twists herself into a pretzel to avoid the truth. It makes her seem smaller everyday. I don't care about national polls. They mean nothing in the primary season.

on aug 30 or 31st 2002..( i remember date ,it is my sons b'day)..the head of the Methodist Church..*es church wrote a letter and sent it out to all the top people in the methodist church that he had a meeting at the white house with blivet..and that there was no way anyone was going to talk * out of attacking iraq..that it was inevitable.

it was a sort of call to arms by the methodist church...the man was obviously upset and disraught..

i used to have the letter in my files..i posted it for years..but i no longer have it..

this was long before the congressional vote..and the IWR...

anyone who wanted this letter could easily access it..on the internet..it was zooming through the internet..anyone in congress that says they didn't know about it is lying..or too stupid for words!

if i could find it and have it..so could they have since i had only around that time even learned to us a computer.. other than signing in for work!

fly


this is all i can find but it isn't i don't think what the original letter was..

****i think i can post the full thing because it is from a religious article..if i am wrong mods please edit..



http://archives.umc.org/umns/news_archive2002.asp?ptid=2&story={16AD674C-0B36-4E8F-B288-5A77E5041237}&mid=2399

Church executive urges Bush not to attack Iraq

9/3/2002


NOTE: A head-and-shoulders photograph of Jim Winkler is available at http://umns.umc.org/photos/headshots.html online.



WASHINGTON (UMNS) - The chief staff executive of the United Methodist Church's advocacy and action agency is calling on the White House not to attack Iraq but to seek a peaceful solution through the United Nations.

"The Bush administration has declared its intent to launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its allies, many members of Congress, key experts and millions of U.S. citizens," said Jim Winkler, staff head of the denomination's Board of Church and Society, in an Aug. 30 statement.

"With unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack, the president has all but given the order to fire," he said.

He urged United Methodists "to oppose this reckless measure" and to encourage President Bush to find peaceful means for resolving the threat posed by Iraq. U.S. officials are concerned about reports that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has stockpiled weapons of mass destruction.

"Our church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations against weaker ones," Winkler said. "We recognize the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among nations." He cited the denomination's resolution "Support for Self-Determination and Nonintervention," originally passed by the church's highest legislative body in 1988, then amended and readopted in 2000. That body, the General Conference, determines United Methodist policy.

"United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack," Winkler said. "President Bush and Vice President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war.

"I beseech the president and vice president to provide leadership into a new era of Christian discipleship," he said. "We must as a people and nation recast our personal and national priorities so that God's creation and the needs of the least, the last, and the lost are first in our hearts."

Winkler's statement followed an Aug. 29 plea from 37 Christian leaders from the United States, Britain and Canada attending a meeting of the World Council of Churches Central Committee in Geneva (see UMNS story #382). The signers included several United Methodists, among them the top staff executive of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA.

The conflict between the United States and Iraq "can and should be dealt with by the United Nations," Winkler said. "No member nation has the right to take unilateral military action without the approval of the U.N. Security Council, approval the United States has not received. Without such approval, the United Sates will stand in violation of international law."

Questions of noncompliance with weapons inspections should be handled by the United Nations, Winkler said.

"A pre-emptive war represents a major and dangerous change in U.S. foreign policy," he said. "It also sets a terrible precedent for other nations. For example, what would then stop India or Pakistan from carrying out such an attack on one another on the grounds they themselves might be attacked? Pre-emptive war cannot become a universalized principle, lest disaster and chaos result."

This would not be "a just war," Winkler stated. Proof of a real threat to the United States has not been offered, he said, noting that no evidence has shown that Iraq has a nuclear warhead aimed at the United States or even deliverable weapons of mass destruction. "No case can be made that a war against Iraq is justified for the self-defense of the United States. Further, Iraq's neighbors are not calling for assistance from the United States."

Winkler raised questions about the potential loss of life on all sides, the financial costs of a war and its aftermath, and the consequences for the future of Iraq.

"Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and vote on the question of undertaking an invasion of Iraq," he wrote. "The length of conflict, level of long-term involvement and final outcome are by no means assured."

He warned that Baghdad, a huge city with innocent civilians, would be a major target. "Accidentally or not, we have seen the death of too many noncombatants in Afghanistan in recent months as the result of poor targeting and decision-making. How many more civilians will die?"

"The United Nations estimates its own sanctions , the most severe to ever be imposed on any nation, have already resulted in the deaths of one million people," Winkler observed. And, he noted, the regime of Saddam Hussein has committed many atrocities against its own people, causing great suffering for many years. Winkler offered prayers for the Iraqi people and expressed a yearning "for a just and peaceful government in Iraq."

He urged United Methodists to take seriously Jesus' instructions to be peacemakers and seek justice. "We must speak out now - to the president, members of Congress and our local media - that the path upon which the president seeks to embark is counter to the teachings of Jesus, inconsistent with the position of the United Methodist Church and is one that threatens the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy.

"That the end justifies the means is the weakest of all possible arguments. Our nation deserves better and the world expects better of us."
# # #
The full statement follows:

Press Statement

Aug. 30, 2002

For immediate release

Bush Urged to Turn Back From War

The following is a statement of General Secretary Jim Winkler of The United Methodist Church General Board of Church and Society:

The Bush administration has declared its intent to launch a war against Iraq, ignoring the advice of its allies, many members of Congress, key experts, and millions of U.S. citizens. With unprecedented disregard for democratic ideals and with an astonishing lack of evidence justifying such a pre-emptive attack, the President has all but given the order to fire.

I ask United Methodists to oppose this reckless measure and urge the President to immediately pursue other means to resolve the threat posed by Iraq. The United Methodist Church has called for "Support for Self-Determination and Nonintervention" for all nations (2000 Book of Resolutions #277). Our Church categorically opposes interventions by more powerful nations against weaker ones. We recognize the first moral duty of all nations is to resolve by peaceful means every dispute that arises between or among nations.

United Methodists have a particular duty to speak out against an unprovoked attack. President Bush and Vice-President Cheney are members of our denomination. Our silence now could be interpreted as tacit approval of war. Christ came to break old cycles of revenge and violence. Too often, we have said we worship and follow Jesus but have failed to change our ways. Jesus proved on the cross the failure of state-sponsored revenge. It is inconceivable that Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior and the Prince of Peace, would support this proposed attack. I beseech the President and Vice-President to provide leadership into a new era of Christian discipleship.

This matter can and should be dealt with by the United Nations. Our Church "support(s) regional and international negotiations arranged in cooperation with the United Nations and held without resort to political posturing." (2000 Book of Resolutions, p. 684) No member nation has the right to take unilateral military action without the approval of the UN Security Council, approval the United States has not received. Without such approval, the United Sates will stand in violation of international law. The administration's proposed attack is essentially a unilateral U.S. effort that uses as its rationale Iraq's non-compliance with U.N. Security Council Resolution 687 requiring full compliance with UN weapons inspectors. Arab and European governments strongly oppose an invasion of Iraq. Their views cannot and should not be disregarded. The question of weapons inspection non-compliance should be a matter for the United Nations.

There are those who argue that some military actions are just, however this would not be a just war. No proof has been provided that Iraq has nuclear weapons mounted on launchers aimed at the United States or troops massed on its borders or has developed deliverable weapons of mass destruction. No case can be made that a war against Iraq is justified for the self-defense of the United States. Further, Iraq's neighbors are not calling for assistance from the United States.

A pre-emptive war represents a major and dangerous change in US foreign policy. It also sets a terrible precedent for other nations. For example, what would then stop India or Pakistan from carrying out such an attack on one another on the grounds they themselves might be attacked? Pre-emptive war cannot become a universalized principle lest disaster and chaos result.

There are questions yet to be asked and answered about many matters including the potential loss of life on all sides, the financial cost of a war and its aftermath, and consequences for the future of Iraq. Congress must exercise its constitutional responsibilities and vote on the question of undertaking an invasion of Iraq. The length of conflict, level of long-term involvement, and final outcome are by no means assured. Presumably, Baghdad, a huge city filled with innocent civilians, must be a major objective of attack. Accidentally or not, we have seen the deaths of too many noncombatants in Afghanistan in recent months as the result of poor targeting and decision-making. How many more civilians will die? What is the reasonable chance of success in this war? How long would it take to rebuild destroyed areas? Can the United States effectively carry out regime change?

The regime of Saddam Hussein has carried out many atrocities against its own people and has been a highly negative influence in international and regional affairs. We all yearn for a just and peaceful government in Iraq. The Iraqi people have suffered greatly for many years and our prayers are with them. The United Nations estimates its own sanctions, the most severe to ever be imposed on any nation, have already resulted in the deaths of one million people.

If we, as United Methodists, are to take seriously the words of Jesus to become peacemakers and seek justice and peace with one another (Matthew 5:1-12), we must speak out now - to the president, members of Congress, and our local media - that the path upon which the President seeks to embark is counter to the teachings of Jesus, inconsistent with the position of the United Methodist Church, and is one that threatens the rule of law as a fundamental principle of democracy. That the ends justify the means is the weakest of all possible arguments. Our nation deserves better, and the world expects better of us.

General Conference is the highest decision-making body of the United Methodist Church. The General Board of Church and Society is mandated by General Conference to seek the implementation of the Social Principles and other policy statements on Christian social concerns through forthright witness and action.

I was looking at umc.org, but struck out.

Well done.

By the way, is HRC a Methodist, by any chance? IIRC, Bill is a Southern Baptist, but I don't believe HRC is.

it was released by a huge press release..i read it in the florida newspapers at the time!!


and i know many thousands of us were sending it to all dem congress people's offices..i remember doing a blitz of sending this letter to all media and congress people with my online groups..

and all the US churches were speaking out loudly!

all over the world they were..as early as aug 2002..saying bush was going to attack Iraq..so now for anyone to say they didn't know * would attack is total bullshit!

they are lying out their asses!

fly

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960621/site/newsweek/

I don't doubt anything you say. But the fact that the leader of HER OWN CHURCH wrote such a devastating letter contradicting what she now claims certainly raises additional questions.

Those Democrats who did not support the IWR and who did not trust Bush, how is it that they clearly saw Bush's intentions and were not fooled, while others were? Or did I somehow dream that quite a number of Democrats in our legislature opposed the IWR?

I think it might be worth going back to look at what our Democratic representatives were actually saying on the floor of the Senate and House at the time.

I clearly remember some of the reasons senators voted against it were because of the wording of the IWR.

I also clearly remember the liar Matthews pushing and pushing the cause for war with Iraq. You cannot believe even one word Matthews spits out because of his proven lies. From his fawning all over Katherine Harris, drooling how he was such a fan of hers, to the time he said he learned from the Libby Trial how successful the OVP was in manipulating the media. Right.

And in addition, I also clearly remember the polls in September and October of 2002 were heavily favoring Bush using force against Iraq, regardless of inspectors going back in, and regardless of getting other nations to join in.

Matthews, like other right wing hate mongers, is covering his pomp from his royal rump.

One needs to read the IWR if they don't remember what the majority of Senators voted for. That document says it all. Shame on Matthews for HIS insinuation that the IWR doesn't indicate what the Senators expected of Bush.

it is hard to keep up sometimes..when we remember a fact..fact check it...

i have incredible files i have kept..butttt..i have a new computer and the little computer guy transfered my files..and i can't find them on this new computer..they used to be at my finger tips..now ..well they are somewhere on this little machine!!...
lol...

but it seems like there is selective memory on the part of all these people..amd we need to keep a running tract of what they said then and what they are saying now!!

bullshit is bullshit..

and yes mathews ..is a fing whore liar..i can not stomach him..he is a traitor to this nation as far as i am concerned!

fly

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2002/03/24/IN164155.DTL

This article (link above) Chris Matthews wrote in the San Francisco Chronicle one year before we went to war, before the IWR lays out the reasons why we shouldn't have gone to war. This was not some secret arcane plot by Bush that caught everyone by surprise. We knew we couldn't trust anything Bush did since the 2000 election. To me, it was a clear case of SOME of our Democratic representatives in our legislature letting us down and taking the cowardly option.

The IWR is the proof of what the senators thought.


There is nothing else needed.

about Matthews. I dislike Matthews as much as you do, but I have to admit he was right in this article and very prescient.

In the article written one year before the war, Matthews laid out in detail why the march to war in Iraq was being heavily, very heavily pushed by the neocons in the Bush administration and why it would be a disaster. Everyone, especially Washington insiders knew what Bush was up to. Does it get any clearer than this article?

What he said a year prior to that is not what I am talking about. I will look for links where he pushed the war before the invasion.

In the meantime, here's Matthews in his prime pushing the Iraq stuff:

And, unfortunately, you can't contradict what Matthews wrote in black and white in the San Francisco Chronicle. Even if Matthews flip-flopped after that, which the little whore might have done, it doesn't change the fact that this crazy neocon agenda for Iraq was very, extremely, absolutely crystal clear to Washington insiders, of which Chris Matthews is one of the best examples.

In his comments above, the "grounds" Matthews is talking about are the Bush Administration's "grounds". There were no other entities presenting "grounds" for the war. In your quote, Mathews was talking about how Bush duped the American people. Well he certainly didn't dupe all of the American people, as I recall massive demonstrations all across America, with most of the grass roots seeing right through Bush's lies including almost everyone right here on Democratic Underground. Certainly, Joseph Wilson saw through them. And even if you buy the notion that the American people were duped about the war, that's different than duping the Congress. The Congress wasn't duped at all and knew enough not to trust Bush. Did you trust Bush, after what he did in the 2000 election?

How do you account for the different positions taken for example in the speeches of Russ Feingold and Hillary Clinton on the Senate floor upon their voting for the IWR? And I'm not specifically criticizing Hillary Clinton in her IWR vote, because at least in her speech she said it was a hard decision to make and there was pro and con on both sides. But she seemed to accept everything Bush said, including the propaganda that Sadaam Hussein was a threat to Israel and had harbored Al Qaeda. I found her very hard to believe. I could not imagine Hillary actually saying that she took Bush at his word. Contrast her position to that of Russ Feingold, who pointed out in his speech how he did not trust Bush at all because of his constantly shifting justifications for going to war and because of the vague nature of the Iraq War Resolution, rendering it impossible to approve of? How do you justify that one Senator was following the Bush line and, in Hillary's own words, took President Bush at his word, and Russ Feingold who so easily saw through all the hype?
How do you account for one Senator, Feingold, seeing the IWR for what it was, a vague and indefinite authority to go to War based upon shifting justifications that didn't hold up; with another Senator taking Bush completly at his word and not once challenging what he was saying about his grounds for war in Iraq?

Hillary's speech:

http://clinton.senate.gov/speeches/iraq_101002.html

Feingold's speech:

http://www.senate.gov/~feingold/speeches/02/10/2002A10531.html

Anyone who read the PNAC's Project For The New American Century knew what the neocons who infested the Bush Administration were up to. Anyone who read Chris Matthew's article in the San Francisco Chronicle knew what insiders knew about the nefarious schemes of ChimpCo in Iraq and why they wanted to go in at all costs, authority or not. Anyone who wondered about what Cheney was doing in his secret energy meetings had a good notion that he was carving up Iraq already, well before the war, among oil companies. After what Bush did to this country in seizing power in 2000, after what he did in 9/11 when his own PDBs and half the world's intelligence services warned him about the attacks for which he did nothing, I don't see how anyone could take him at his word, the way some Democratic representatives in our legislature did. Shame, shame on them.

If you are saying the IWR was an appropriate thing to approve, and all the reasons Bush laid out for invading Iraq have since been disproven, what are we still there? Why will we apparantly be there for many more years? What has Bush not been impeached?

How exactly is a yes vote on the IWR defensible?

My comment "there is nothing else needed" was related to how the senators that voted yes expected Bush to behav - - as spelled out to him in the IWR.

Sorry if I was not more clear.

Back to my being against the war - - - back then, before the IWR vote, and before the March 2003 invasion, I always felt Bush and Cheney knew Saddam did not have the WMDs. I always felt is was about oil then. And today I feel Bush will never end his illegal occupation until control of Iraqi oil is sufficently in the hands of the hands that feed him.


But my other senator, Bill Nelson, voted yes. I need to tell you that I believe Nelson is as honest and sincere as they come. And in January of 2004 he had this to say:




http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/s012804b.html

OK, then he should be impeached and tried for treason. Why has he not been? Why have these senators who voted yes failed to impeach him? Is lying to take us to war treason, or not?

Furthermore, there is a lot of evidence that the supposedly secret, unknowable disputes such as that cited by Sen. Nelson were not that secret and these senators had the capacity to get that information, even if bushco did not volunteer it. That is particularly true of the senators on certain committees, such as intelligence.

I repeat, voting for the IWR is indefensible.

If you are trying to prove the truth about the intelligence was difficult to find, I will stipulate that. But it was not that difficult, particularly when it comes to a vote on a war resolution.

They have told just about every lie in the book from (We did it just to get the inspectors in... which is untrue b/c Iraq agreed to the unconditional return of the inspectors on 9/16/2002, all the way to, "no one thought he was going to do this...")

Any candidate who had a hand in giving bush this power, does not have the judgment to be in office, because they have shown they will easily sacrifice their principles for political purposes.

He comes across as a liar and as one who will say anything to further his candidate.

He comes across as a smug thug.

He comes across as totally disdainful and disrespectful of those with whom he engages.

I'm not saying anything about his candidate here. I am speaking only of him.

I don't care who he speaks for, I don't like him either. Did you notice how he gets that oh-so familiar smirk when he's belittling people? Smug Thug is exactly right.

if you hire someone with no integrity ,what does that say about the person who hires that person???

if you hire someone who doesn't care about their credibility..they are representing your credibility..

it isn't so tough to see the connection..

or see where the responsibility lies.

fly

Wouldn't you call that naive to believe... that we're not going to war when everybody thought we were going to war? I thought we were going to war.

Oh, really? I'll bet you said so on air too, didn't you? Just like all the rest of the propaganda cartel.