Hutchison: WMD info swayed vote on Iraq

cat's meow · #1 (**permalink**) 10-21-2006, 04:34 PM

So if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of TX. (who is quite conservative in my book) says this then is she a 'softy' too? Where is she getting her info, hmmm?

Quote:

Hutchison: WMD info swayed vote on Iraq

By SUZANNE GAMBOA, Associated Press Writer Fri Oct 20, 7:43 PM ET

WASHINGTON - Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, one of
President Bush's most ardent loyalists on the war in
Iraq, voiced her strongest criticism yet of the administration's reasons for going to war.

In a debate with her challenger in the Nov. 7 election, Hutchison, R-Texas, said she would not have voted for war had she known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But she also made it clear she does not support troop withdrawal.

"If I had known then what I know now about the weapons of mass destruction, which was a key reason that I voted to go in there, I would not vote to go into Iraq the way we did," Hutchison said. "But I have to say, I don't think the president would have asked for that vote, either. We had intelligence that we relied on."

Her comments Thursday night come as a small but growing number of Republicans are suggesting a change in the Iraq strategy may be necessary.

She recently has been edging slightly away from President Bush on the war. This week she told Texas newspapers the option of partitioning Iraq into semiautonomous regions should be considered.

The White House said it has rejected that option.

In July 2004, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee found key U.S. assertions leading to the Iraq war — that
Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons and was working to make nuclear weapons — were wrong or based on faulty
CIA analyses.

A September report by a Democratic Senate panel said the White House painted a portrait of Iraq of having ties to al-Qaida based in part on intelligence it knew was flawed.

Republicans attacked the report as recycled information and accused Democrats of election-year politicking on the eve of the fifth anniversary of the terrorist attacks.

Hutchison's opponent, Democrat Barbara Radnofsky criticized the senator's debate statement, saying it was evidence the U.S. should not be in Iraq.

"It's clear the Senate papers reflect a lack of consensus or decisiveness that there was weapons of mass destruction. They were there, she just didn't read them," Radnofsky said.

Kix · #2 (**permalink**) 10-21-2006, 05:25 PM

Do you have a link to this article?

monkeyinthemiddle · #3 (**permalink**) 10-21-2006, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cat's meow

So if Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of TX. (who is quite conservative in my book) says this then is she a 'softy' too? Where is she getting her info, hmmm?

You know Cat..what you're supposed to do when you post someone's editorial in this forum is you have to back it up with something.
This editorial is another finger pointing stick your head in the mud opinion.
Pointing fingers at the CIA and our intelligence agencies is really not a way to bring resolution to this war.
This war exists simply because of a well known fact, a fact brought to us by the ME, fundamentalist groups have declared a war, a jihad against western civilization, the west being the USA.
They (these muslim fundamentalist enemies) have gone to extreme measures to demonstrate their vehement hate and hostility towards the USA and other countries in this world.
They (these muslim fundamentalist enemies) caused masses of death and destruction more times than we would like to accept and this in FACT is in and of itself a WEAPON of MASS destruction.
All political smarmy, flimsy, lame and evading sentiments are only excuses to ignore an EVIDENT, REAL, EXISTING AND PROGRESSIVE ENEMY who is slowly and surely gaining progress towards their evil goals.
Our presence in iraq and afganistan is a US measure of rejection to submit to or endure any FURTHER invasions and attacks against our American sense of life.
Editorial opinions from political and activist agendas are merely whines over a lengthly difficult and hostile discourse (war) between civilizations.
Had we not joined allies with the ME at all we would be in less of any circumstance with these hostile mob governments and revolutionaries.
But this is just another complaint, because the FACTS remain that we ARE INVOLVED with these countries economically and politically, therefore, we must act on all measures and resist all practices of hostile and progressively evil enemies acting out against our civilization.
In the FACT that we believed iraq and other ME countries contained WMD's and these countries resisted compliance to maintain neutral and friendly practices, we acted on the evidence we had.
The fact in which these countries resisted demonstations of compatability with neighboring countries IS A THREAT to our civilizations, in expressing a direct interpretation of war, measures must be taken to enforce a military offense towards all interpretations of hostile agendas.
The US remains in iraq for these reasons and the reasons remain to be FACT.

Any and all talks in questioning the reason, logic and sensibility of a war in iraq or remaining in iraq is ignorant of all the real FACTS that are evident.
It's a politically disingenuous act when there is a history of factual evidence that already answers the question.http://www.nomullas.com/beheadings.html

monkeyinthemiddle · #4 (**permalink**) 10-21-2006, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kix

Do you have a link to this article?

You can get it from any extreme liberal blog site.

graybeard · #5 (**permalink**) 10-21-2006, 05:43 PM

http://dwb.fresnobee.com/24hour/poli...12495940c.html

Hutchinson story.

cat's meow · #6 (**permalink**) 10-21-2006, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by monkeyinthemiddle

You know Cat..what you're supposed to do when you post someone's editorial in this forum is you have to back it up with something.

Where did you get the idea this is an editorial...do you know what an op ed piece is?

cat's meow · #7 (**permalink**) 10-21-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graybeard

http://dwb.fresnobee.com/24hour/poli...12495940c.html

Hutchinson story.

Thanks GB, I had actually got it from the Netscape server but I think it is the same thing.

MITM...this is written by GAMBOA reporting on what Hutchison has said, that is not an op ed by any means. If you think this is an op ed then you must think that absolutely everything reported by ALL media is of opinion/editorial status, that is a logical conclusion to what your line of thinking is on this...FACT. If you don't like or do not agree with the Senator from TX (and the articleis not lying or interpreting what she sadi) then I highly suggest you write her as I have written my two Senators (Frist and Alexander) when I disagree with them. Again, so we are perfectly clear...this is a report on what Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison said in a debate, this first paragragh clearly outlines this.

Quote:

In a debate with her challenger in the Nov. 7 election, Hutchison, R-Texas, said she would not have voted for war had she known there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But she also made it clear she does not support troop withdrawal.

...what else is there to say...not an op ed...case closed. Has the Senator debated this? Debated that she did not say this? Was someone twisting her words?

Quote:

...But she (Hutchison) also made it clear she does not support troop withdrawal.

And you seemed to have missed this line also...she supports a loyalists like you. Honestly, do you know what an op ed piece is? This reports on what she says and she says there will be no troop withdraw.

I would hope that a traditionally conservative Sen would have her shit together when making critical comments about an adninstration she has supported many times.

I will repeat this again...if you don't like waht the Sen said then write her.