Isn't it time for them to admit

But this is interesting too:



If this is true, then why the hell don't the Democrats who voted for the Iraq War - including Hillary Clinton - come out and say exactly what Bill Clinton said?

And why don't they go one step further and say George Bush lied to them - and to the world - about Iraq?

Is that such a hard thing to say 15 months after the publication of the Downing Street Memos?

http://www.democrats.com/bill-clinton-smacks-lieberman

I want to underscore that this administration began this debate with a resolution that granted exceedingly broad authority to the President to use force. I regret that some in the Congress rushed so quickly to support it. I would have opposed it. It gave the President the authority to use force not only to enforce all of the U.N. resolutions as a cause of war, but also to produce regime change in Iraq , and to restore international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region. It made no mention of the President's efforts at the United Nations or the need to build multilateral support for whatever course of action we ultimately would take.

The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq . It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

Page: S10174

Q: Did you vote for presidential authority to go to war because you thought the president should be given the benefit of the doubt?

I didn't give him the benefit of the doubt. Issues of war and peace go outside of partisan politics. When the president of the United States says this is the way I'm going to do something, you ought to have the right to believe that president. And if there's anything that makes me more motivated about this, it is the fact that he went back on his word with respect to an issue that involves the lives of our young Americans. Americans know that this president did not go to war as a last resort.

Q: Did he intend from the beginning to go to war, no matter what the U.N. or allies said?

But he changed that, you see. This is where the word of the president is so important. Jim Baker wrote publicly how important it was to go to the U.N. Brent Scowcroft wrote publicly. The word around Washington was, the president's father is very concerned, and they don't want to go in this direction. So the president then comes forward and says, you're right. We're going to do these other things.

Q: Was Bush merely paying lip service to trying the diplomatic route?

It appears more and more evident that that may have been the truth, which is why the president broke his word. That's why I say he misled Americans.

Q: What may have been the truth?

That they intended to go no matter what, regardless of what happened. If that is true, he even more misled the nation. If that is true.

Q: Are you less optimistic about bringing democracy to Iraq and the entire the Middle East than President Bush says he is?

Well, (the goal is) moving toward stability. If you don't have stability, you can't have democracy....When you get into those kinds of categories (such as realist), you wind up not doing justice to what's at stake here. We want an Iraq that is not a failed state, one that is moving toward democracy and toward diversity, and has the ability to stand on its own two feet. And how you get there is a more complicated thing than this administration allowed for.

I believe you need to change the current equation significantly. You cannot have a situation where the United States of America has as big a footprint on this process as it does, and hope to have legitimacy and contain the forces that have been unleashed. We need more people involved in this effort, in a broader international effort. And the president has made it very difficult to achieve that.

Now, I believe it will take a new president, a change of administration in Washington to restore credibility to America, and to open the doors to new possibilities for how we get our troops out of Iraq. That's what I believe. And there are many, many other international observers and others who know what's going on who agree with that. All you have to do is go talk to some of my Senate colleagues who have traveled to Iraq and to Europe and elsewhere, and they will confirm to you the need for this new international initiative.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-22-kerry-qna_x.htm