Senator Jim Talent told moderator Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” this morning that he would have voted for to go to war in Iraq even if he knew there were no weapons of mass destruction.
MR. RUSSERT: Knowing what you know today, knowing what you know today, that Saddam did not have the weapons of destruction that our intelligence agencies thought he had, if you knew that today, would you still vote for the war?
SEN. TALENT: Well, yeah, I mean, I think…
MR. RUSSERT: You still would?
SEN. TALENT: …it was the—I think it was the only possible strategic choice. Look, Saddam had been an organic threat in the region for a long time. He represented a threat to us. That threat is now gone. Tim, look at what’s not happening.
MR. RUSSERT: But Senator, isn’t it an important question: if, if, if the CIA said to you, “Saddam does not have weapons of biological, chemical, or a nuclear program,†you would still vote for the war?
SEN. TALENT: Well, he wanted them. He was trying to get rid of economic sanctions. He would’ve had $70-a-barrel oil. He’d have been competing with—I mean, if action had not been taken to remove Saddam, the same people who are being critical of what’s going on in Iraq now would be screaming that we’d left him in power. We’d have another Iran there. That threat’s been removed.
Click here for the full transcript.
Loading ...
October 8th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
of course he would have voted for thw war, he does whatever Bush tells him to do. We need an independent Senator who will provide a critical and objective approach to casting votes - not a rubber stamp for this corrupt and incompetent administration.
October 8th, 2006 at 1:17 pm
For that reason alone we can’t re-elect him. He is either delusional or believes we are all very, very stupid.
October 8th, 2006 at 4:12 pm
In Antonio “Sunday Funnies” style, I can just imagine the thought bubble above Talent’s head: “Of course I would have voted for the Iraq war no matter what. Without my lap dog vote, I would have dropped to 93% in voting lock-step with GW.”
October 9th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Jimmy says “We’d have another Iran”??! Most foreign affairs experts would say the post-Saddam Iraq looks more like Iran than Saddam’s Iraq, though neither a beacon of democracy. The most democratic Arabic state in the Middle East– Lebanon– has now been trashed, thanks to Bush’s trashing of US-Arab relations.
But at least Jimmy alludes to our real intentions, saying, “he would’ve had $70-a-barrel oil.” Even if he’s talking about lifted sanctions, he’s telling of our motivation.
October 9th, 2006 at 9:22 pm
Oh, anonymous, don’t be upset by Talent’s “I was for it before I was against it before I was for it” illogical, doublespeak. Either he hasn’t a clue like his good buddy GW, or he is just trying to confuse the heck out of the voters–likely both!