Oops! Democrat legislators caught up in another scandal ...

Hi Luna... " Could it be that Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott, David Bonior and Mike Thompson are the legislators linked to Al-Hanooti?" After reading the article it sure looks like they are. Although it may merely be a coincidence, I don't generally believe in them... especially when it comes to the government in general, and Congress in particular. It is definitely another big "Oops", but we are used to that from the democrats... it seems that when it comes to foreign policy issues they don't fully understand the implications of their actions. It is either that or they just don't care about the implications. "Oklahoma Sen. Don Nickles, the second-ranking Senate Republican at the time, said the Democrats "sound somewhat like spokespersons for the Iraqi government." ... That statement would suggest that Senator Nickles found the stance of the Democrats at the time to be a bit odd considering the circumstances. I do seem to recall a push aimed at getting the sanctions lifted by the democrats prior to the invasion. It does raise the very real possibility of collusion... but if that were to be true, then that means that these democrats were working on behalf of Saddam against our on government... which would make them traitors. "Or, does this demonstrate the abject failure of Democrats to recognize the threat behind appeasement policies?... According to the online dictionary... "appeasement A policy of acceding to hostile demands in order to gain peace." Yes this demonstrates that very well, as does the many other things the democrats and other have said and done in the interest of peace. This to me is like paying "tribute" or "protection money" to criminals in order to be left alone. This appeasement never works for long because the demand swill always increase. It is the same as allowing yourself to be held hostage while continuously making ransom payments, yet the ransom will eventually and gradually increase. This is part of the reason that the democrats are considered to be weak on foreign policy and our national security. They fail to realize that the more concessions we make, the more concessions will be demanded of us, because we have proven ourselves weak by acceding to the demands in the first place. Even in the last week or so I have ran across information that showed the democrats and Clinton did not realize the seriousness or the methodology of the Mideast in the way they think and believe. What the democrats consider appeasement, these countries consider surrender. It is no wonder that Saddam was so convinced that we would not come after him... if the democrats were doing things like this article is saying, then Saddam had every reason to believe that he was safe from attack, and that he could act with impunity. The fact that ANYONE was trying to get sanctions lifted or soften our position against him in any way was telling him that not only did we want to avoid a conflict, it told him that we were AFRAID of a conflict with him. The fact that Bush Sr. did not take the fight all the way to Baghdad during the Gulf War told Saddam that he was safe as long as he stayed in Iraq. He considered the Gulf War a victory simply because we withdrew instead of finishing him then. Instead, the WMD issue came up, and the UN imposed those Sanctions, and all the while we had democrats trying to work out deals with Saddam under the mistaken idea that he would be receptive and willing to come to an acceptable agreement, when the reality was that they merely reinforcing his resolve by trying to make those deals. They simply did not understand the dynamics of the Mideastern Mindset. Now that we are in Iraq, we have the antiwar statements that are telling the terrorists that all they have to do is dig in, because America is tired of this war, and sooner or later we will surrender and go home. If we pull our troops out before they have been defeated, then we WILL have surrendered in the eyes of the terrorists. The people who voted to authorize this invasion did not understand the implications.... they seemed to think it would be over as soon as Saddam was defeated. Bush told them, Bush told the entire country that it would be a long road... but they were not paying attention. Now we have a similar situation in Iran, and the democrats still have not learned. Many of them want to talk, and open lines of communication with a country that wishes our demise. These are people who value only actions and results, not talk. Appeasement will not work in this situation either, and we are going to eventually have to deal with them as well... one way or another.

I love how you leave out the part of the article in which it states the Justice Department found that none of the 3 Reps were aware that Saddam had anything to do with the trip. I only wish they would've figured out that Iraq had no WMD's. Maybe we wouldn't be in this mess. All 3 reps agree that the trip was arranged, according to them, to "see the plight of the Iraqi children". This is all stated in the article you posted. There is no oops about this - it's just like Fox News. You picked what you wanted people on here to see, and left out the parts that would make this a moot point. They were there to see children, nothing more, nothing less. There was nothing "appeasing" about the trip at all.

This will be an interesting case to follow. That is because Saddam was notorious for using the oil wealth of Iraq to corrupt political officials around the world. Could Saddam have bribed or 'bought' these members of congress for some nefarious purpose? (Sarcasm on) Nah, of course not. Everyone knows US politicans, especially Democrats, are incorruptible! Surely, that trip to Iraq was merely in the interests of peace. I know this in my heart. That evil Iraq war only had to happen because that evil bad man President Bush would not also make a peaceful sojurn to Iraq (like the enlightened Democrats) to peacefully confer with that nice man, Saddam. (Sarcasm off)

Boy that is more then a big "oops". "Oops" is an understatement. I agree with you that they should have known who was funding the trip and what all it would mean. I have the feeling this is going to hit the fan big time and I think it's about time. I hope that the press doesn't sweep this under the rug which they have seemed to like to do when anything shows the democrats in a negative light. I've noticed how they are very quick to show the negative of anything the republicans do but if it's the democrats they try to avoid it. The press has been very biased lately and I am very sick of it. Maybe if things like this come out they will begin to go back to the reporting they should be doing and not take sides on the issues. I'll be curious to see where this one goes and what all happens.

At best the trip just had really bad timing. At worst, these three legislators were colluding with the enemies of the USA. There is so much propaganda being put out there by the different parties in this election year, I'd like to see at least 1 or 2 more articles relating to the incident before making a judgment on what really happened.

Naturally I'm suspicious of it. I think there is more to this, but if that's not the case... this is quite a situation. There is still some doubt here. Maybe the representatives were indeed there to see the plight of the children or to assess some other issue in regards to the country. But if that is the case, there is still the issue of Al-Hanooti being an informatant/monitor for Iraqi intelligence (and the invitation of politicans possibly conducive to lifting the sanctions). I would want more information, but so far the situation looks more than questionable. Its the weekend and I'm trying to relax, but I recall other senators and reps with possible connections to foreign interests (past and present). So for me, this isn't much of a shocker, its been done before just with other people, countries and interests. If I come across some information or remember anything more I'll share it.