| Just days after the invasion of Iraq, Senator Frank Lautenberg responded to criticism of Bush by saying that "the days of dissent...are essentially over." Today he declined to express regret for those statements.
On March 17, 2003 -- three days before the invasion of Iraq -- Senator Tom Daschle said "I'm saddened, saddened that this president failed so miserably at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life because this president couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
Some considered these to be controversial words at the time. One week later, Senator Lautenberg appeared on Hannity & Colmes on Fox News to discuss Daschle's comments and said "the days of dissent I think are essentially over" and that instead people should only be disagreeing about "the behavior of Saddam Hussein". COLMES: Senator, I want to ask you what the tone is in the Senate right now. You know some Democrats, it seems -- you know, Sean was mentioning what Senator Daschle said. Some Americans are upset with some of the comments Democrats have made. Is there unity at the moment?
LAUTENBERG: Well, there's unity in preference behind the war, behind the troops. We want everything to be there that protects them, that gives them the best opportunities they have to conclude this war with minimum casualties. There's full support for the effort.
The days of dissent I think are essentially over. People have a right to disagree. But if they're disagreeing, they ought to disagree with the behavior of Saddam Hussein. The cruelty and madness with which he held people's lives in fragile hands. But there's no protest there and I don't get it. I vividly remember the early days of the war. They were very lonely and from left to right the chorus of voices trying to silence dissent were deafening. It's disappointing to see that Lautenberg was among those voices. Senator Lautenberg should know that nobody gives up their right to disagree with or criticize the government because of war. In fact he's been among the war's harshest critics -- even calling Dick Cheney "the lead chickenhawk".
More important to me than someone's past mistakes is to know if they learned from those mistakes. Which is why I was disappointed that when Rob Andrews was asked if his support for the Iraq war was a mistake, he dodged the question.
Asked if Lautenberg regretted making those statements, spokesperson Julie Roginsky told Blue Jersey in a statement that "What the Senator regrets is trusting George Bush and Rob Andrews not to deceive Congress and the American people about the intelligence on Iraq and WMD. Once it became clear that there were no WMDs, and that the Bush Administration falsified intelligence to sell the war, no one spoke out quicker and more forcefully than Senator Lautenberg."
The statement continued: "In fact, by July 2003, Senator Lautenberg was raising serious questions about the war in Iraq and, by September, Senator Lautenberg declared publicly, "the American people need to be told the truth about the situation in Iraq."
While Congressman Andrews continued - for three years - to enable Bush on the war, Frank Lautenberg was working to hold Bush and Cheney accountable, and start bringing our troops home.
Rob Andrews was voting with Bush and the Republicans until the Summer of 2006. As early as 2003, Frank Lautenberg was among a brave group of 12 Dems who voted against Bush's $87 billion Iraq Supplemental in October 2003. Lautenberg has voted for every resolution to withdraw our troops. Andrews voted against several withdrawal resolutions before his fortuitous 2006 epiphany.
There is no comparison between their two records on Iraq." I'll repeat exactly what I wrote regarding Andrews' non-answer: Not giving a straight answer to that question suggests either an unwillingness to admit a mistake or the belief that it wasn't a mistake to begin with. Neither possibility is inspiring.
What do you think? |
