Quotes from Leading Democrats
Compiled with commentary by Kenneth J. Theisen
Millions of people who hate everything the Bush regime stands for are hoping that the upcoming election will put Democrats in charge of the House and maybe the Senate. They then expect the Democrats to change the Bush regime program and hold the Bush regime fascists accountable for their actions. But the Democratic leadership is just as dedicated as the Bush regime to protecting American imperialist interests under the guise of fighting the phony “war on terrorism.” A few illustrations follow:
Bill Clinton, September 24, 2006 interview on Fox News:
When
pressed by Chris Wallace as to why he had not more to suppress Al
Qaeda he defended his administration with the assertion that he had
plans to conquer and occupy Afghanistan, nearly one year before the
September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington.
“After the [the October 12, 2000 bombing of the US destroyer] Cole,”
Clinton said in the interview, “I had battle plans drawn to go into
Afghanistan, overthrow the Taliban, and launch a full-scale attack
search for bin Laden.” The only thing that stopped him from launching
the war against Afghanistan he said, was that the US military “needed
basing rights in Uzbekistan,” which were obtained only after 9/11. He
went on to argue, “Our party supported them [Bush administration] in
undertaking weapons inspections in Iraq and was 100 percent for what
happened in Afghanistan, and they didn’t have any way to make us look
like we didn’t care about terror.”
In defending Democrats against
charges that they are weak, Clinton went on to say, that “Reagan’s
secretary of the navy,” James Webb, is running as the Democratic
candidate for Senator in Virginia and that “a three-star admiral, who
was on my National Security Council staff, who also fought terror,” Joe
Sestak, is challenging a Republican incumbent for a congressional seat
in Pennsylvania. “We”ve got a huge military presence here in this
campaign,” Clinton declared. “And we just can’t let them have some
rhetorical device that puts us in a box we don’t belong in.”
For
those who may have forgotten, it was Bill Clinton, not Bush, who was
responsible for the deaths of a half million innocent Iraqi children
and another half million civilian adults through the “sanctions”
imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. Clinton’s Ambassador to the UN Madeleine
Albright said the goal of gaining control of Iraq made the children’s
mass death “worth it.”
Howard Dean, Chair of the Democratic National Committee:
Howard
Dean praised Clinton for his performance on Fox News. “President
Clinton stood up to the misleading tactics of the right-wing propaganda
machine. As the National Intelligence Estimate that was reported on
today showed, the Iraq War and the Bush administration’s failed
policies have hurt our ability to win the war on terror. As President
Clinton said, Democrats stand for policies that are both tough and
smart and we remain committed to winning the war on terror.”
Dean on Iran:
“The
United States has to … take a much harder line on Iran and Saudi
Arabia because they’re funding terrorism.” While campaigning for
president in 2004, Dean contended that President Bush had been far too
soft on Iran. In a March 2004 appearance on CBS” Face the Nation, Dean
stated that “[President Bush] is beholden to the Saudis and the
Iranians.” On June 24, 2006 he stated “In the meantime, the Bush
Administration has left Afghanistan exposed to a resurgence of the
Taliban and Al Qaeda; and taken its eye off the ball in places like
North Korea and Iran which have now become greater threats.”
Senator John Kerry
In
the Editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal in an article entitled,
“Losing Afghanistan: We’re not adequately fighting the war we should be
fighting.”
Kerry attacked the Bush regime for not being
aggressive enough in the war against Afghanistan. Kerry wrote: “Quite
simply, we must change course–starting with the immediate deployment
of at least 5,000 additional U.S. troops. That includes more special
forces to defeat the Taliban, more civil affairs troops to bolster the
promising Provisional Reconstruction Teams, more infantry to prevent
Taliban infiltration from Pakistan, and more clandestine intelligence
units to hunt al Qaeda on both sides of the border. That also means
more predator drones to provide real-time intelligence, more
helicopters and transport aircraft to allow rapid deployment, and more
heavy combat equipment to overpower enemy forces”The US must not cut
and run from the real front line in the war on terror. We must recommit
to victory in Afghanistan.”
[A little background is appropriate
here. Democratic leaders have been consistent in their support for the
war against Afghanistan. Their current line as stated by Kerry is that
this is the “real front line in the war on terror.” But the war
against the people of Afghanistan is an imperialist war for control of
the Middle East just as much as the war in Iraq. It has nothing to do
with fighting “Islamic terrorists.” In fact the U.S. began to support
these terrorists when President Carter on July 3, 1979 signed a
directive to give support to opponents of the then pro-Soviet regime in
Kabul. In 1986, Reagan’s CIA chief, William Casey, committed CIA
support to a proposal to recruit Islamic militants from around the
world to join the Afghan jihad against the Soviets. One of those
recruited was Osama bin Laden. Later the Taliban came to power with the
help of Pakistan’s intelligence service, the ISI, which also received
CIA funding. At first the U.S. supported the Taliban in the hopes of
having a controlling force in Afghanistan. When this failed, the U.S.
supported the Northern Alliance (a collection of drug war lords) to
drive the Taliban from power. Today these drug lords are in power
under the U.S. puppet regime of Karzai.]
Kerry on Iran, May 29, 2004
He
told the Washington Post that the Bush Administration has not “been
tough on the [Iran] issue ” which is the issue of nuclear weaponry, and
again just like I said with North Korea, you have to keep your eye on
the target.”
Kerry, like every other senator in the chamber
except Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), voted for the USA PATRIOT Act in the
wake of 9/11 which enabled the Bush regime to restrict civil liberties
and conduct spying on a massive scale.
Senator Hillary Clinton:
Senator
Hillary Clinton made the following statement at a September 26, 2006
press conference and then posted it on her Senate web site. She
responded to the testimony of three recently retired military
commanders before a Democratic panel on the war in Iraq. In their
testimony the officers criticized Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
while calling for an expansion of the Iraqi war. Army Major General
Paul Eaton, who headed the training of the Iraqi military, testified
that some 60,000 more troops should be deployed in Iraq. Maj. Gen. John
Batiste, former commander of the Army’s 1st Infantry Division in Iraq,
declared, “There is no substitute for victory and I believe we must
complete what we started in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must mobilize our
country for a protracted challenge.” A third witness, a Marine colonel,
said that the war would have to go on for another decade or more.
In
her statement Clinton declared, “The Administration has lost focus on
winning the war on Iraq”Our problem with dealing with the
administration is, as what we said, you know, their rhetoric has not
been matched by resources or resolve in the way that it needs to be and
so we constantly hear the drumbeat of you know, “We can’t change, we
have to do this” as we are being told it has to be done.”
November 29, 2005 letter to constituents by Hillary Clinton:
“It
is time for the President to stop serving up platitudes and present us
with a plan for finishing this war with success and honor – not a rigid
timetable that terrorists can exploit, but a public plan for winning
and concluding the war.”
Hillary’s response on Feb 2, 2005 Bush’s State of the Union speech:
“We all know that the United States cannot stay in Iraq indefinitely
and continue to be viewed as an occupying force. Neither should we slip
out the back door, falsely declaring victory but leaving
chaos”Democrats are committed to a strong national security that keeps
America safe, that wins the war on terror, and that never again sends
our troops into harm’s way without the equipment they need. In our New
Partnership for America’s Future, House Democrats have made a
commitment to guarantee a military second to none””
September 6, 2006 speech on Senate Floor:
“We
didn’t go with enough troops to establish law and order, to put down a
marker as to our authority as we replaced an authoritarian
dictatorship. We went with this dysfunctional bureaucracy known as the
Coalition Provisional Authority, which disbanded the Iraqi Army, which
we’re now trying to re-create.”
Hillary Clinton, January 18, 2006 speech at Princeton:
“I
believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the
White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the
negotiations. I don’t believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea
by outsourcing it to others and standing on the sidelines. But let’s be
clear about the threat we face now: A nuclear Iran is a danger to
Israel, to its neighbors and beyond. The regime’s pro-terrorist,
anti-American and anti-Israel rhetoric only underscores the urgency of
the threat it poses. U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal. We
cannot and should not – must not – permit Iran to build or acquire
nuclear weapons. In order to prevent that from occurring, we must have
more support vigorously and publicly expressed by China and Russia, and
we must move as quickly as feasible for sanctions in the United
Nations. And we cannot take any option off the table in sending a clear
message to the current leadership of Iran – that they will not be
permitted to acquire nuclear weapons.”
Senator Harry Reid, Democratic Leader in the Senate, August 10, 2006:
“Terrorism
remains the greatest threat to our security. As the five year
anniversary of the September 11th attacks approaches, we should take
this opportunity not just to remember, but to take stock of what
progress has been made to protect Americans and what steps remain
unfulfilled. As a result of mismanagement and the wrong funding
priorities, we are not as safe as we should be and we still have not
implemented the bipartisan 9-11 Commission’s recommendations to secure
our ports, airports, and chemical plants. The Iraq war has diverted our
focus and more than $300 billion in resources from the war on terrorism
and has created a rallying cry for international terrorists. This
latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush administration and the
Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all the
steps necessary to protect Americans at home and across the world.”
Democratic House Leader Nancy Pelosi on 60 Minutes, October 22, 2006:
“Do
you not think that the war in Iraq now, today, is the war on terror?”
Lesley Stahl asks. “No. The war on terror is the war in Afghanistan,”
Pelosi says. When asked if impeachment is on the table. “No,
impeachment is off the table,” she says. “And that’s a pledge?” Stahl
asks. “Well, it’s a pledge in the – yes, I mean, it’s a pledge. Of
course it is. It is a waste of time,” she replies.
Democratic Leadership Council, October 20, 2006:
“A
New Strategy to Win the War on Terror. We need a new strategy that uses
all the tools of American power to make our country safe. America must
lead the world’s fight against the spread of evil and totalitarianism,
but we must stop trying to win that battle on our own. We should reform
and strengthen multilateral institutions for the 21st century, not walk
away from them. We need to fortify the military’s “thin green line”
around the world by adding to the Special Forces and the Marines, and
expanding the Army by 100,000 more troops.”
Senator Evan Bayh, probable
candidate for Democratic nomination for 2008 Presidential election and
a leader of the Democratic Leadership Council, May 9, 2006:
“We need a more muscular policy toward Iran.”
Barack Obama, September 24, 2004:
“[L]aunching
some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be
in” given the ongoing war in Iraq, Obama told the Chicago Tribune. “On
the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of
nuclear weapons is worse,” he said. Obama went on to argue that
military strikes on Pakistan should not be ruled out if “violent
Islamic extremists” were to “take over.”
Rahm Emanuel, chair of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, June 2005 statement on the House floor:
“The
debate today is about whether the American people want to stay the
course with an administration and a Congress that has walked away from
its obligations or pursue a real strategy for success in the war on
terror. We cannot achieve the end of victory and continue to sit and
watch, stand pat, stay put, status quo and that is the Republican
policy. Democrats are determined to take the fight to the enemy.”
Senator Charles Schumer, Chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
October 23, 2005, Meet the Press Interview:
When
asked whether he regretted his vote for the war on Iraq, he answered,
“Well, no, Tim, because my vote was seen and I still see it as a need
to say we must fight a strong and active war on terror.”
October 22, 2006 News Forum interview:
“No,
I don’t think we can just leave, pick up and leave, but you’ve got to
have a better strategy. When your strategy hasn’t worked for two, three
years, you’ve got to find a new one.”
Conversation before the Council on Foreign Relations, January 25, 2002:
“I
think we will have no choice but to engage in a large-scale military
action in Iraq”And we”ll have to finish up the job there. “But overall,
the president’s plan, as I say, I think it’s been brilliant, I think
it’s going to take three to ten years, we”re going to have to persist,
but it’s successful”We will win the war on terrorism, both abroad and
at home. We”ll make mistakes. But we”ll win it if we have resolve.
That’s the fundamental question that I worry the most about. Will we
stick with it? The president realizes this. I”ve spent some time with
him since September 11th. I have to tell you, as somebody who has
disagreed with him, particularly on domestic issues, he has very good
instincts for this. When you sit down and talk to him one on one you”re
impressed.”