I'm not afraid to admit that I would have voted for the war in Iraq...

[xultar]

IF I were in the same shoes as our Dem Senators.

Why, because the intelligence given to the Senate was from the White House. The White House cooked the fuck out of it and lied. How as a senator would I know that they are lying until after the fact.

Now yes war is wrong but...they were saying some AWFUL things about what Uncle SADDY had. I would have been afraid that it could have come here.

Now hindsight being 20/20 Uncle Saddy didn't have it. Rumsfeld didn't have a plan.

Looking back my vote would have been wrong. I would lay awake nights knowing that my vote cause the innocent deaths and maiming of 100's of thousands of innocent Iraqis and 10's of thousands of our own soldiers.

I would apologize to the American people for my mistake and make sure that intelligence given to the senate comes directly from a non politicized source like the CIA under a non-partisan leader.

I'm just being honest. I know there are those who will say with impunity that they wouldn't have done it. But what if it were true. And we didn't and your kids got blown up @ a mall you'd wish you had. There are no winners in this thing only losers and losers.

I'm not afraid to say if I were fed the same shit I would have voted for the war. I can't knock anyone who did because I'm only human and so are they. BTW so are you.

FLAME AWAY!!!

[AX10]

1. I was an opponent of the Iraq war in Oct 2002 and I am still one...

now. I would have proudly voted AGAINST the war. That's because I have "balls" and am willing to take a strong and principled stand.

[lumpy]

51. I don't have balls, thank goodness,

but I do have time to spend on the net and have always been interested in politics even before I retired. I was against this war and was only able to vote with my feet and mouth. I understand that many people are busy trying to live their lives and must rely on the integrity of leadership that truly affects our lives. Pity our Congress people don't TAKE the time to fully investigate the issues instead of worrying about the next election and where the money is coming from to remain in the race.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

160. I was also an opponent from get go, and knew that the story of WMDs was

a pack of lies. There was enough info on the Internet at the time to reach that conclusion.

[LondonReign2]

2. How would you have known?

The same way we all did! We all knew the info was crap, we knew about PNAC, we knew ChimpCo was forcing the inspectors out before they could prove the WMD lies.

Wasn't hard to know at all.

ON EDIT: Not a flame, but a question: How could you NOT know they were lying?

[carolinalady]

19. I wasn't internet savvy--I did not know about DU--I was one of the

majority who relied on traditional media. Now I am gettin' an education!

[GreenArrow]

60. and it's not like thousands of people didn't

forward that information to their Reps. It's not like the information wasn't available to them. Then again, the sales pitch wasn't really geared to them anyway.

[Midlodemocrat]

64. Exactly. We knew.

The only thing I can say in the defense of our democratic leaders is that perhaps even they didn't believe the depth of the Bush Cabal's depravity...that they would knowingly send young men and women to their deaths for no reason.

Perhaps they couldn't envision it because they would never have considered it themselves.

[LondonReign2]

72. It wasn't for no reason

It was so that they could stuff their pockets with loot.

It is another reason people should have been suspicious even without knowing if the WMD charges were true or not. Who was going to profit from this little excursion? Why, Halliburton (Cheney), defense contractors (Poppy), and the oil companies (the entire Oil Administration).

Follow the money, you'll usually be able to decipher their motives.

[Midlodemocrat]

73. You are right, of course, but to me, that is 'no reason'.

[wookie294]

3. In 2001, Colin Powell and Condi said Saddam had no WMD

See link...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

Logic dictates that a country bombed back to the stone age for 12 years DOES NOT have weapons of mass destruction.

[stop the bleeding]

11. Is this widely known??? Why wasn't this ever in the news? don't answer

rhetorical question -

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...


THIS REALLY PISSES ME OFF!!! :argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh::argh:

[wookie294]

34. There is even doubt that Saddam gassed the Kurds

The CIA officer in charge of watching the Iran-Iraq war said "accusing him (Saddam) of gassing his own people at Halabja as an act of genocide is not correct."

He also said "immediately after the battle the United States Defense Intelligence Agency investigated and produced a classified report, which it circulated within the intelligence community on a need-to-know basis. That study asserted that it was Iranian gas that killed the Kurds, not Iraqi gas."

Read his full op-ed here....

http://www.propagandamatrix.com/a_war_crime_or_an_act_of_war.htm

More info here….

http://www.ipsnews.net/interna.asp?idnews=24480

[beingthere]

4. i wouldn't flame you

but am probably older than you, and well remember opposing the first Gulf War, because that also was for corrupt reasons, Poppy Bush & Co spawned W & Co, with all the corrupt connections running the whole way through...
Read Craig Ungar's "House of Bush, House of Saud" fantastic book on the history of the whole crew

[xultar]

17. But what if I like it hot...then would you flame me?

:rofl:

[carolinalady]

5. I would have too because I would have felt as a member of the

intelligence committee that I was being given honest and accurate information and I would have felt that I had to protect the American people from certain nuclear, biological and chemical attacks.

I too would have lost sleep when I found out the truth, BUT I would have been like a dog with a bone trying to out the liars.

I can prove that last part--I got fired for outing my boss on financial fraud!

[G_j]

6. when did Iraq ever threaten the US? n/t

[truebrit71]

7. I knew it was bullshit from day one.

.

[electropop]

8. You would know because a politician's job is to read character.

Even a casual glance was enough for most of us to know that Bush is a lying cheating stealing bastard. He had stolen an election just a year and a half prior to the vote, for example.

[xultar]

22. How can you read CHARACTER out of doctored CIA intel?

[electropop]

26. If you look at only the paper, you are ignoring the context.

If the paper was handed to you by a lying thieving bastard, you need to pay attention to that fact as you read it.

[xultar]

38. Ahhh come on...It was intelligence. I know that you are sooooo keen

that intelligence documents from the CIA wouldn't have fooled you.

I know you would have thought well these are lying bastards so everything they give me with the CIA seal on it was doctored.

I know you wouldn't have been fooled.

Well DAYUM...we need to get you to run for office. Why are you here and not out there running getting elected and making this a better place?

I don't get it. With all the people here who knew and aren't out there running for office?

I'm human I make mistakes so I'd never be able to run for office, but you, you knew more than me. Why aren't you out there so I can vote for you!

[electropop]

43. I'm advising a congressional campaign

for somebody who is skeptical like me. Perhaps in a few years I'll try to run myself. Look, I accept your mistake as reasonable and not your fault. It's not your job to read human character for a living (I assume). It is the job of politicians to do so. Even around the time of the war vote there was plenty of controversy over the quality of the intelligence being presented by the Regime. There was plenty of evidence that Bush would commit any ruthless and unscrupulous necessary to get his way. As a Senator, you would definitely have been aware that the CIA answers to the President and with an unscrupulous President, might be bent to any purpose.

[xultar]

47. all right baby, then pm me with the name so I can provide $$$$

Cuz that is what I'm looking for. To hang my $$$ on people who knew or candidates who are being advised by people who knew.

THANK YOU FOR BEING OUT THERE AND HELPING MAKE THIS WORLD A BETTER PLACE!!!!

[electropop]

134. You would be totally shocked if I told you who.

She is by far the most progressive candidate in the race.
She's a close personal friend of Harry Reid.
She's pro-education, pro-senior, pro-veteran, and pro-choice.
She wants to protect the seat from right-wingers.
She often complains about the Patriot Act, the invasion, and the Culture of Corruption.
She hates Bush and the religious right.

and she's a republican

She is considering switching parties, but (though she is running a progressive campaign) in her district only Republicans win. It's not a religious zealot kind of area, just quite libertarian.

I'm no political pro; I just met her more or less by chance, and have learned that my very liberal views are very similar to hers. She likes the way I write and I often help her find ways to sell progressive ideas to moderates. For example, she loved an article about a business group who denounced the Patriot Act.

Anybody who knows me is quite surprised to hear this lifelong (46 years) Repub-hater supporting one, until they read her materials. :wow:

Oh, and the polls look very good for her; she is the apparent front runner.

Do you hate me now? :blush:

[serryjw]

137. YOU as an average citizen watch MSM

BUT our leadership certainly knew the info was faulty. Scott Ritter said in 1998 Saddam didn't have any weapons and he wasn't a threat to us. There were votes against the invasion including DK, did he NOT care about the security of our country? WE spent a year AFTER the invasion LOOKING for WMD. Why could the UN inspectors NOT spent the same year BEFORE the invasion doing the same thing??
Actually, give yourself MORE credit. You are here because you care about the truth. IF you were in Congress you would have cared to find out before a bad vote...I believe in you!REMEMBER, even IF he had WMD....HE DIDN'T have a delivery system.

[LynnTheDem]

148. This CIA intell? CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120103A.shtml

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong
The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans

The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

[LynnTheDem]

149. Hell YES they knew.

Neglecting Intelligence, Ignoring Warnings
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

The ONLY reason any senator could say they did not know is if they were too busy/stupid/corrupt/dead to do their fucking job.

[Ian David]

9. I was against the war until Collin Powell sold me on the idea

And then the day I saw the art museums being looted and the so-called "weapons sites" being looted along with them, is the day I realized I'd been fooled.

[carolinalady]

14. Colin Powell sold me too, I've never been so disappointed in

a person as I was with him.

[Ian David]

25. If Powell had run against Gore, I actually might have voted for Powell

I will never forgive Powell.

[lumpy]

62. Colin Powell knew his presentation

to the UN was a batch. He proved he was a weak and dishonest player only interested in his political future. Anyone who saw the phony act should have been very skeptical. Coupled with the fact of UN input and involvement in Iraq it just didn't make much sense. Bushco should be crucified for lying us into a war that has ruined so many innocent lives and our own questionable future.

[AllegroRondo]

10. They authorized use of force to give the inspectors some teeth

which I admit sounded good at the time.

Who knew Bush would rush the inspections and jump straight to invasion?

[Debi]

15. Anyone who knew George Bush....you know

the guy who pushed the PATRIOT ACT?!

[laureloak]

110. Exactly. We couldn't trust the President to do the right thing.

[justiceischeap]

12. There's no way I would have voted for it

I made a prediction when GWB was running for prez and that was gas prices would balloon while he was in office. What is under Iraq? Oil. I've felt from the very beginning this war was about two things. Oil and vendetta.

Also, let's not forget, that when Poppy was in office, he took us to war with Iraq when our economy was in the tanker. Who's economy was in the tanker when we went to war with Iraq this time around? Oh that's right, ours. War, historically, has usually boosted an ailing economy.

This war was never ever about our safety because there was nothing to fear from Iraq.

[panader0]

13. No peace can be won on the point of a sword

Let's practice the Monroe Doctrine in reverse. Let's stay out of their area

[MadHound]

16. Then I hate to tell you this, but in my eyes you should be fired for that.

It isn't the job of a Senator or Congress person to decide on their own, unilaterally how to vote one way or the other. This is a represenative democracy, and the number one job of any Senator or Congressperson is to represent the collective will of your constituents, period. Listen to what your people think on an issue, and act accordingly.

And at the time of the IWR vote, messages to the Hill, by phone, fax, email, snail mail and smoke signals were running 268-1 against the IWR. Millions of people, both nationwide and around the world were out in the streets saying NO to the IWR. Every major poll in this country showed an overwhelming desire for the US to not take any action, including the IWR vote, until the inspectors finished their job. And yet the IWR was approved anyway, against the will of the people.

You're making the same assumption that our so called leaders still make to this day. They think that it is their job duty to impose their own will on their constituents. It isn't. They are in DC as our reps, and their job duty is to impose the collective will of their constituents.

[xultar]

20. But you make decisions based on the information you have. if the info

is fucked up then you make fucked up decisions.

The only intelligence the Senate gets is from the WH. If I'm wrong tell me so with proof please.

[LondonReign2]

30. The information wasn't in a vaccuum

It was being debunked constantly. Powell's presentation was a rehash of things that had been debunked. Balsa wood drones spraying poison over US skies? C'mon!

Additionally, you had the PNAC documents and ChimpCo's actions. It was obvious they wanted a fight at all costs, and that the intel was crap.

[xultar]

33. I wasn't @ DU then I wasn't enlightened...so where was it debunked?

I was a regular old American like 90% of the country.

So what did you know what made you so sure?

[LondonReign2]

37. That probably is it -- DU

You're right, most of the stuff was buried by the mainstream, who wanted to get their war on. But it was all over DU. PNAC, El Baradei (sp?) debunked much of it, but there was also Scott Ritter, Blix himself and others. But it was easy to find if you were a member of DU.

BUT, ChimpCo himself should have thrown up a big red warning flag to anyone. It was clear that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. And why not let the inspectors finish the job? ChimpCo's own actions should have made anyone suspicious.

[LondonReign2]

49. Yup, here ya go.

DU was all over this.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5246695

[serryjw]

138. Do you have the link of the retired Generals

Who signed a letter to Bushit to NOT invade?

[LynnTheDem]

151. Hell yes they knew.

Norman Schwarzkopf - Four Star General:

"The general who commanded U.S. forces in the 1991 Gulf War says he hasn't seen enough evidence to convince him that his old comrades Dick Cheney, Colin Powell and Paul Wolfowitz are correct in moving toward a new war now. He thinks U.N. inspections are still the proper course to follow. He's worried about the cockiness of the U.S. war plan, and even more by the potential human and financial costs of occupying Iraq….(And don't get him started on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld)"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A52450-2003Jan27?language=printer

"Stand tall and publicly tell the America people the truth about another bad war that could well lead to another died-in-vain black wall. Or even worse."
-Col. David Hackworth
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29786

"Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
-President GHW Bush, 1998;
http://www.rense.com/general43/quote.htm

"Do we really want to occupy Iraq for the next 30 years? …In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets…. Nations such as China can only view the prospect of an American military consumed for the next generation by the turmoil of the Middle East as a glorious windfall."
-James Webb, former Sec. of Navy under Ronald Reagan, Decorated Marine Veteran
http://www.sftt.org/article09302002a.html

"We are about to do something that will ignite a fuse in this region that we will rue the day we ever started."
-Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, former Head of Central Command for U.S.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/10/17/zinni

"A billion bitter enemies will rise out of this war."
- Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2003, Full page ad in Wall Street Journal by major GOP contributors
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001444.html

"Right now, the course we're on, we're achieving Bin Laden's ends…. I've never seen it so bad between the office of the secretary of defense and the military. There's a significant majority believing this is a disaster.

The two parties whose interests have been advanced have been the Iranians and al-Qaeda. Bin Laden could argue with some cogency that our going into Iraq was the equivalent of the Germans in Stalingrad. They defeated themselves by pouring more in there. Tragic."
-Gen. William Odom, former head of the National Security Agency
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

"The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is ludicrous. There are no good options."
-General Joseph Hoare, the former marine commandant and head of US Central Command
http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/091704Y.shtml

Brent Scowcroft;

"Don't Attack Saddam. It would undermine our antiterror efforts. There is scant evidence to tie Saddam to terrorist organizations, and even less to the Sept. 11 attacks."
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110002133

Republican Dissent on Iraq
Full page ad in Wall Street Journal by major GOP contributors:

"Mr. President, …The candidate we supported in 2000 promised a more humble nation in our dealings with the world. We gave him our votes and our campaign contributions. That candidate was you. We feel betrayed. We want our money back. We want our country back…. A Billion Bitter enemies will rise out of this war."
- Wall Street Journal, January 13, 2003
http://talkleft.com/new_archives/001444.html

Col. Mike Turner (ret), Schwarzkopf's personal briefing officer during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm:

“The uniformed Joint Staff in the Pentagon strongly opposed this plan early on...The uniformed Joint Staff was overridden, yet in so many horrifying ways this operation resembles Somalia, not Desert Storm...Perhaps we can pull this off, but here's a far worse scenario that's at least as likely...Photos of American soldiers amid landscapes of Iraqi civilian bodies blanket the world press which aligns unanimously against the US. The US is condemned by NATO and the UN...The war ends within a few weeks, but the crisis deepens...”
http://www.npr.org/programs/morning/transcripts/2003/mar/030311.turner.html

Dick Cheney in April 1991, then Defense Secretary:

If you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein,you have to go to Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you do with it. It's not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Baathists, or one that tilts toward the Islamic fundamentalists?

How much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have to stay to protect the people that sign on for that government, and what happens to it once we leave?
http://slate.msn.com/?id=2072479

President GHW Bush, 1998

"Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
http://www.rense.com/general43/quote.htm

HELL YES they knew.

[serryjw]

166. Lyn..I never questioned that they knew

HELL YES THEY KNEW

I was looking for the open letter written to Bushit from all our retired military generals NOT in support of the invasion. I KNOW I have it, just can't find it..



All those links were great!

[LynnTheDem]

150. How about on the House floor? By a Republican, yet.

October 2002
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120103A.shtml

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong
The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans

The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

[MadHound]

39. You're missing the point friend

As a Senator or Congressperson in a represenative democracy it isn't your job to analyze intelligence or to make unilateral decisions. In a represenative democracy you are supposed to be the voice of your constituents, representing the collective will of the people. If the majority of people say war, you vote war. If the majority say peace, you vote peace. It is a real simple concept, but sadly one that seems to have been lost over the years.

If you constituentcy is saying that you should vote against the IWR, then you had damn well better vote against it, otherwise you are failing in your primary job duty as a represenative. Sadly, a lot of our reps failed their jobs that day, and were all paying the price for it, some of us the ultimate price.

[seaglass]

124. No way. We are voting for the people to represent us using

their best judgment, they are not there to take a poll every time they make a decision and they have information that we don't have access to.

My State Rep was the deciding vote against the death penalty in my state which was against the will of the majority of her constituents. Thank goodness she didn't take a survey of the voters first.

[G_j]

48. why wasn't Scott Ritter allowed to testify before Congress?

there was even a national call-in over this. They ignored us.

He was the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq who said there were no WMD.

[LondonReign2]

68. Because the Rethugs were busy

...sliming him with a bullshit child molestation charge in an effort to ruin his reputation. Just like Wilson & Plame, they didn't to destroy truth tellers.

[jedicord]

24. Excellent Post, can say no more. n/t

[Pastiche423]

29. Precisely

And it was known and talked about on the Senate floor prior to the IRW vote that the majority of constituents in states all across the country were against the invasion.

[Debi]

42. I disagree with that.

Although an elected representative is supposed to give weight to their constituency, they have also been entrusted with making educated decisions based on information that may not be readily available to all those they represent.

"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion. " Edmund Burke

Another good one from Burke:

"When the leaders choose to make themselves bidders at an auction of popularity, their talents, in the construction of the state, will be of no service. They will become flatterers instead of legislators; the instruments, not the guides, of the people. "

[MadHound]

50. Then you will be failing Civics 101 friend,

Much like our so called leaders failed it with the IWR.

It is a basic building block of any represenative democracy that the will of the people is voiced by their represenative. This has been true ever since the heyday of Athens.

Sadly, many people have failed that class before you, and sadder still, they are our leaders.

[Debi]

56. I will never support a government built on sock puppets.

representative government is not representative of one individual solely. It is a collective representation mixed with education and reason.

Thank you for advising me of my failure - I received that quote from my husband, who served in the US Congress for three terms. I'll let him know that he was doing it all wrong for six years. I'll also decide which one of you I wish to take advice from, the scales are tipped toward my husband.

[MadHound]

63. And it is because of that attitude amongst our so called leaders

That we have become involved in these sorts of mistakes and tragedies time and again. Tell your husband to go reread his Constitution, the writings of our founding fathers and governmental scholars. Yes, our representatives do need to be educated and reasoned in their approach on various Congressional matters, but when it comes down to voting, their vote is not their own, it is the collective representation of the will of his constituents.

The assumptions made by your husband have sadly been made by most of our so called leaders for the past century or more. Such repetition of bad assumption doesn't make it right friend, it just compounds the problems, as we continue to see on a daily basis.

[Debi]

75. Serve in Congress - then advise my husband how to serve

I cannot imagine you would serve very well (attempting to to take the advice of 600,000 people on each and every vote you are required to make - you'd never make a roll call as you would always be on the phone gaging how your constituency wants you to move forward). Multiply that by 10-20x because that's how many votes members of Congress have to make daily.

You are quick to judge without weighing any information other than your own opinion in this matter, obviously the voters in my husband's district thought he was doing well in his job (or in your words doing well in repetition of a bad assumption) or he would not have served three terms.

You are welcome to have your thoughts, I hope I am welcome in believing that my husband served honorably instead of unconstitutionally.

[carolinalady]

123. I was going to say something similar==He is proposing that

government be run by referendum. When a candidate gets elected, he has represented a set of opinions and actions that have been judged by the voters. If the voters disagree with such they will not elect or reelect him. It would be impossible to get every voters opinion on every subject and every voter has a different opinion so a true representation would require questioning every constituent.

[Debi]

164. I was befuddled by the argument, but I guess I'm uneducated

:hi:

Thanks for the response!

[meganmonkey]

18. They don't get a pass from me

I read a book called 'The Fire This Time' about the first Gulf War and it's effect on Iraq, and the sanctions throughout the 90's and how they crippled Iraq's ability to produce much of anything, let alone WMDs that could reach the US.

I marched on Washington in Fall of 02, and early 03 (and so on and so forth).

I am glad that the Sens are openly admitting that they wouldn't have voted for it knowing what they do now, and as long as they start talking in anti-war/pro-withdrawal language I am happy to welcome them into the fold. But they fucked up, they should have known better because it is their JOB to know better, and to do better by the American people. If I could know it was BS, they could know too. I don't blame the American people for not knowing because there were a lot of people working at hiding the truth from them. But the Senators? They don't get a pass from me on this one.

I am not going to flame you cuz I love ya, and I appreciate what you are saying but I don't fully agree...


:shrug:

:patriot:

[Debi]

21. It's good of you to admit it

I didn't agree with it and would not have voted for it.

I remember being at a house party in 2002 and hearing John Edwards talk about serving on the Intelligence Committee and the hard choices (or language to that effect) that were going to have to be made.

I have to say it's easier to say I would have voted against the IWR on principal than having to review all the information and vote for/against it based on knowledge (no matter how failed the intelligence was).

[xultar]

27. That's all I'm sayin. As a Senator you have to vote with the info you

can't just vote on your beliefs. The people who voted for didn't send you up there to vote without reading the information.

Can you imagine if you voted for someone and they came back to you and said, nah I didn't read the information on the bill but I believed it was bad so I didn't vote for it.

I'd be like what the fuck. I could sent my cat up there to vote without reading shit.

[MadHound]

44. Xultar, Xultar, Xultar

The people send you up there to represent their collective will. You are their voice, that is what it means to be a represenative. You don't make your own decisions, you don't impose your own will. You vote how your constituents tell you to vote, otherwise you are failing in your job duty.

And in poll after poll, message after message, protest after protest, the American people were overwhelming saying NO to the IWR. Your duty should have then been clear, to vote NO.

[Debi]

53. I hope that the people do not elect empty shells (GWB excluded)

I hope that as the people we elect individuals that can think and reason. I don't want a show pony in Washington, I want an intelligent person. I may not always disagree with my Representative or Senator or Governor, but I don't expect to. How do you make 600,000 people happy on every vote?

I'm pissed at all the Democrats that voted for the IWR, I think several of them did it because of the timing of the vote and their concerns, politically, about the mid-term elections. But I will not ever expect my elected officials to only vote by my sway, I will trust them to become educated and make a moral decision. (And if they don't, I have the power of my contributions and my vote to advise them of my disappointment).

[bliss_eternal]

55. This may be true--

but I understand what xultar is trying to say.

[MadHound]

61. I understand what she is saying also

But I think that she is making the same mistake and assumption that the majority of our representatives did, they think that they are supposed to "lead" their constituents on major issues, rather than listening to what their constituents want to happen. It is this sort of attitude that has gotten our country in trouble time and again, and will in the future unless we make perfectly clear to these people that they are our employees, not that we're their followers.

[bliss_eternal]

82. MadHound--

You've made a good point, as well. I agree that I would like nothing more than for my senators to act on our behalf.

I'm just not sure it's that simple. I wish it were. It just seems when the right is in office, it's not just about having your voice and the collective voice of the constituents heard, it's about survival with these guys.

Maybe there are other factors for them to consider in order to function affectively on behalf of their constituents. I don't know that it is or isn't...just considering things from that perspective...

[xultar]

58. I don't think so. You must live in a Blue state. In the early days

people were scared to death. They thought SADDY had WMDs. They wanted their kids to be safe @ school and @ the mall.

Most of us weren't as informed as y'all elite liberals were back then.

I wasn't apart of DU until Oct 2k3. I came to the light just like many more are coming. Will it be our policy as liberals to make those who bought into the scare tactics feel stupid and ignorant?

Will we make them not want to vote because they feel as though they aren't as good as we are at catching the bullshit?

I wonder?

[MadHound]

71. No, I live in Missouri, quite the red state

And I'm not trying to make people feel bad for being duped or ignorant at the time.

What I am trying to do is hold our so-called leaders accountable for the one big mistake that they made, and that was to disregard the collective will of their constituents. Go check your recent history friend, you will find that millions contacted their Senators and Congresspeople to say NO to the IWR. Millions more were out in the street saying NO to the IWR. And every single major poll showed that the American people did not want to take any action in regards to Iraq, including the IWR, until the inspectors finished their job and came home.

But instead of doing their job of representing the will of the people, a majority of our reps failed miserable and voted their own mind, or the mind of their corporate masters, and dragged us into an illegal, immoral war.

If we don't hold our reps accountable now for this massive job failure, what is to prevent them from doing even worse in the future?

[carolinalady]

127. Here is an interesting article from back in the day--

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec02/iraqpolls_10-07-02.html

The people here at DU are highly educated and I respect their opinions and their tenacity. That is why I hang here, but I also see a certain stubborness and glee about "We were right." I hope that the good people of this forum can forgive those of us who were not so enlightened back in the day. I hope we can be inclusive to those that were on the wrong side. If not I fear we are no better than the RW conservative neocons we profess to hate.

Edit to add:
Also one more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_popular_opinion_of_war_on_Iraq#January_2003

[LynnTheDem]

154. Most Americans said NO.

Poll after poll after poll after poll after poll.

NO.

NO.

NO.

Poll: Bush hasn't made case for Iraq war
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-12-17-iraq-poll_x.htm

72% of Americans feel case against Iraq has not been made
http://www.casi.org.uk/discuss/2002/msg02303.html

Poll finds most Americans oppose unilateral action against Iraq
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascitystar/4927419.htm

[carolinalady]

159. I beg to differ with you see my above post with poll numbers.

Most Americans relied on tv and traditional papers for their info--dare I sah the words "New York Times?"

[TahitiNut]

23. It was so obvious to me that Iraq wasn't a threat ...

... that I was even a bit puzzled that folks who marched, as I did, in October 2002 thought it was actually going to happen despite the protests. It was difficult to imagine, even after December 2000 and Afghanistan, that people would stand still for such an insane and criminal act. Boy, was I wrong! If there's anything worse than the constant LIES and DECEITS from the Bushoilini Cabal, it's an electorate that's so willingly deceived and abysmally ill-informed.

Twenty-two Senators voted against the IWR. Only 22! As far as I'm concerned, those are the only 22 who clear the lowest bar of the last four years. All the rest can go fuck themselves.

[xultar]

32. OK how did you know though. Fill me in since it was sooo obvious

you knew more than the senators? Hell why aren't you a pundit or @ a think tank doin some shit to make this world a better place.

I'll admit I didn't know. But if I did I'm sure I'd know a lot of other shit too and that I'd be somewhere doin something other than hanging out here postin with lil silly pictures like this

[TahitiNut]

45. A decade of bombing ...

... and years of weapons inspections and decades of satellite surveillance and not a single detected use of anything like such "horror weapons." The hyperbole that proclaims a semiautomatic rifle as an "assault weapon" is the same insane crap that would claim a vial of anthrax as a WMD.

For a nation to actually have the capacity to produce, store, dispose, and deploy REAL weapons of MASS destruction, the industrial infrastructure that's needed just can't be hidden from that degree of oversight. Anything that COULD be hidden is just not worth invading over. (I worked at the Hanford site for five years.) Absolutely EVERY claim was built on trivialities -- even the intentionally false (fraudulent) claims.

In my opinion, the invasion of Afghanistan was a criminal act as well. The sole "legitimate" reasoning was to capture Osama bin Laden because the Taliban's offer to turn him over to a third nation wasn't acceptable. Well, we sure didn't seem to get what we went after, did we? It was bullshit. It STILL is.

[G_j]

77. in a nut shell

and any Congress person with half a brain could and should have known this also.

[serryjw]

139. I think you are making the wrong conclusion for the right reason

Dems ( unfortunately), after 9-11 were scared to seem weak on national security, I was fundraising for the DNC starting 2 weeks BEFORE 9-11. All I heard was WHY are the dems not speaking out. Maybe they knew/believed but they had their hands tied because of the political climate of the country. Remember after 9-11 Bushit was a hero in this country and his polling was very high.

[LynnTheDem]

156. Condi...Powell...George Tenet...Ron Paul...many said Iraq was NO THREAT

said Iraq was no threat...Republican Ron Paul said, on the House floor, that Iraq was no threat...

October 2002
http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2002/cr091002.htm

Rice; July 29, 2001

But in terms of Saddam Hussein being there, let's remember that his country is divided, in effect. He does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.

Powell; February 24, 2001

That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...
http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

The DIA, DoE, CIA, IAEA...they all knew, they all spoke out;
http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=24889

CIA to Bush: 'No clear Evidence of WMD'
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/120103A.shtml

Why the CIA thinks Bush is wrong
The president says the US has to act now against Iraq. The trouble is, his own security services don't agree.
http://www.sundayherald.com/28384

CIA in blow to Bush attack plans

The letter also comes at a time when the CIA is competing with the more hawkish Pentagon, which is also supplying the White House with intelligence on the Iraqi threat.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,808970,00.html

[NNadir]

28. Not me. I was prematurely anti-war.

I argued against it from day one. I knew it was a fraud immediately - but then again, I know something about nuclear issues. Even if I didn't know that the Niger uranium thing was absurd on its face, I still would have not supported the war.

Wars are very, very, very, very, very rarely justified. Even the wars that are arguably justified have their roots in previous wars - suggesting that war has an abysmal record of achieving any result whatsoever.

This war shall certainly make for more war.

[PaulaFarrell]

31. It's pretty simple

War is wrong. Unless you are in imminent danger, you avoid it at all costs. Even believing all their bullshit, you could not believe America to be in imminent danger. Even Bush didn't pretend Saddam Hussein had ICBMs. People who vote for war forget their humanity. I might vote for it one day, but only if the cost of not doing it were greater than that.

[David Zephyr]

35. So how do you explain Barbara Boxer and other Dems who voted against IWR.

?

[xultar]

41. They got it right! Hot DAMN! I applaud them but I don't HATE the ones

who did.

With all the people here who knew...we should have no problems winning the house and in 2k8 the senate.

I expect all of the people here who knew to be on the ballot instead of bitchin about the ones that did.

That's all. WE have all these brilliant people and all they do is post on DU all day. I'll admit I didn't know. I'm a dumbfuck so I'm not fit to run for office but I will vote for people here who were smarter than me.

[David Zephyr]

102. I don't hate them either.

I was very, very disappointed that they voted for the IWR, but I don't hate them. They were afraid of looking unpatriotic.

I do think that you would have probably voted against it in spite of your protestations above. I've read your many posts here for years now and don't think you would have gone along with Dick Cheney's "word".

In any event, I am very proud of Harry Reid. He stood in the gap yesterday and rose to the occasion.

The American people need to hear over and over that Bush lied and manipulated "intelligence" to scare them into waging an unnecessary war. The Republicans scream every time they hear it because they know how powerful the truth is.

[stillcool]

36. There was never good enough intel...

to support the invasion. And, those that stood up and said so at the time, were clear and concise in their explanations... then, as now. The only reason why i think members voted as they did was liability. The 9/11 meme-scream and gung-ho Bush war babble put them in a precarious position, where they'd be screwed either way, and a vote for war was determined the less harmful.

[triguy46]

40. For my #1000, I can proudly state, that I wouldn't have...

it was a set up from the word go, * led the masses down an alley blindfolded. I had not trust in the election stealer from the start. The single most outrageous "fact" of the whole lead up for me though, was Tony "I'm your puppet" Blair, when he stated that saddam only needed 20 minutes to launch (as in rockets) WMDs. That was the most unbelievable thing I had heard in the whole whirlwind of BS.

Thanks DU, I love it here among friends.

[Jacobin]

46. I see you joined DU in October of 2003

Had you been here prior to the invasion, you would have seen the enormous number of articles in the media from around the world ridiculing the idea of invasion, the posts by Will Pitt from his book co-authored with Scott Ritter the former UN inspector who said there were no WMDs left unequivocally.

You would have seen the propaganda in action and lies spread by the MSM.

Congress certainly is capable of looking at information other than from the WH particularly when it was SO obvious they were spoiling for a war.

Remember: Over ONE HUNDRED congresscritters voted AGAINST the IWR.

It was NOT impossible by any stretch.

Why do you let congresscritters who were bamboozled off so lightly from their responsibilities?

[xultar]

52. Agreed. I didn't join so I didn't know. What is funny is we think every

one knows what we know. But we are a small group of people. Now that I know I educate but I can't beat up the people who didn't know because they are human just like me.

I make no claims to be perfect so I can't run around beating up people who make mistakes.

[Jacobin]

67. Congress must be held to a higher standard

than simpletons watching the propaganda on MSM.

Can that be asking too much?

[WildEyedLiberal]

57. I did not join DU before 2004

But I have friends here who are old timers, and oddly enough, they remember that most DUers accepted that Saddam probably had WMDs, but were conflicted over whether to invade. Note, I said invade, which contrary to DU revisionist history, the IWR did not demand.

I'm sure you'll pretend that DU was 100% against IWR from the get-go, but I do not believe that and I never will. I do believe, however, that people here are capable of distorting the facts in order to present the "reality" of their choice.

[Jacobin]

69. there was a minority who thought we should invade

They didn't stick around.

The IWR gave bush authority to invade. Why do you think he asked for the IWR? to play tiddlywinks?

those who say it didn't authorize the war are trying to defend the likes of Kerry who wanted it both ways.

It didn't work

Many dems screwed up and we knew it then and they should have known it

OVER A HUNDRED IN CONGRESS VOTED AGAINST THE IWR

[sandnsea]

79. The exact reason BUSH SAID

To speak in a unified voice to get the inspectors back into Iraq. Did you support continued inspections?????

[LondonReign2]

84. You appear pissed that you were duped.

So don't take it out on those of us that weren't.

[sandnsea]

92. You're not pissed at Bush's lies???

Well that's interesting.

[LondonReign2]

94. Ha ha.

I think you need a little work on your debating tactic, you are arguing like a right winger.

We were pissed AT THE TIME OF THE LIES. You, on the other hand, are trying to justify supporting the IWR. Two wholly different things.

[sandnsea]

98. The lies proliferated AFTER the vote

And yes, I was pissed then and now. I wasn't the one who was squawking about them finding WMD in Iraq. I knew they wouldn't find anything of substance because if there were any evidence that WMD existed, they would have secured those areas upon invasion. To do less would be extreme dereliction of duty by the Generals. A little fact that has been wholly overlooked the last 2 years. All of which has absolutely NOTHING to do with the IWR. We wouldn't have known the extent of their lies without the IWR. I don't feel the need to appease the left, I still say that was the exact right thing to do and was critical to getting the inspectors access and expose the Bushies lust for war.

[Jacobin]

85. They were ongoing before the IWR

the IWR resolution..........read please "Iraq WAR Resolution"

that was not necessary for the inspections that had gone on for decades.

the IWR was passed to authorize Smirk to invade. Why else would he have asked for it?

Huh?

[sandnsea]

91. Oh puhleeze

Are you kidding me? Inspections that had gone on for decades??? You're manipulating the facts on the ground to support your anti-US oil imperialist hatred. That contributes to the distortion of the facts as much as right wing ideology does. Iraq did not cooperate fully with inspections, that's just a fact. He did not use the oil to provide food and medicine to ALL the people of Iraq, another fact. He continued to try to build up a military to threaten and destabilize the region. Another fact. Scott Ritter said he would have bio/chem weapons within 6 months of inspectors leaving. Another fact. The left cherry picks facts to support their ideology, just like the right does.

A threat of war was to let the UN and Iraq know we were going to find out what was going on there, once and for all. That's what America supported in the fall of 2002. Bush abused the trust and authority he was given with that resolution with his lies and manipulations afterward. It's unfortunate that the left let him off the hook.

[sandnsea]

78. I joined in April of 2003

And what I found was the majority of DU running around like chickens with their heads cut off "what if they find WMD", and quacking around every time something suspicious turned up. Which is why I currently find the whole "we knew" line complete bullshit. I KNOW that people around here did not have confidence that they KNEW anything. I spent the first several weeks screaming "imminent threat" and that the Bushies never had any proof worthy of an invasion. Now I find myself calling bullshit on all these "we knew" assholes who deny what I saw when I got here. Nobody KNEW, absolutely nobody. That's why everybody supported inspections, because nobody KNEW.

[LondonReign2]

83. We knew the invasion was bullshit

No one is claiming they knew with absolute certainty what Saddam did or didn't have. But we knew they whole thing was a farce. And, yes, we KNEW that the IWR wasn't to get inspectors back, it was to invade. That is why Bush never had to go back for a further vote: they'd already authorized force.

So sorry, you are wrong.

[sandnsea]

89. So you didn't know with absolute certainty

I'm not wrong, I'm right. Nobody at DU knew.

[LondonReign2]

93. Yeah, you just keep telling yourself you are right

So long as you set up the false premise that we are claiming to know with absolute certainty that Saddam didn't have WMD, have fun.

That isn't what we are claiming, so sorry. Try again.

But have fun claiming how righteously right you are if it makes you feel better for being duped.

The original poster didn't have the benefit of being on DU prior to the war. You did. And you still got it wrong. So did Mr. Kerry.

[sandnsea]

97. Did I say I got it wrong?

No. I was here trying to calm down all the "what if they find WMD" squawkers with the fact that there was no proof of imminent threat.

You say you didn't know with absolute certainty that Saddam didn't have WMD. You didn't, I didn't. But that IS, in fact, what the rest of DU is now claiming. That they KNEW. So who got what wrong?

[LondonReign2]

122. No, that is NOT what we are claiming

We are claiming that we knew the entire affair was bullshit, including the IWR.

We are claiming we could see right through Shrub's lies--before the vote, not after as you are saying elsewhere.

We are claiming that we weren't fooled into thinking the IWR was about inspectors, it was about giving Bush the go ahead to invade.

We are claiming we accurately predicted EXACTLY how this little misadventure would turn out -- the treasury robbed, soldiers and civilians needlessly dead, more terrorists spawned as a result of our actions, and only the oil interests protected.

Now why don't you go ahead and call us unAmerican and Blame-the-US-first like you did before.

You were suckered. We weren't. Deal with it.

[sandnsea]

128. We had this debate elsewhere n/t

[Jacobin]

86. please keep in mind

That many many many countries have so called WMDs, including of course ours. Many who don't like us have them. However, most don't have oil.

This was the rallying cry, the excuse for the war. It wasn't the reason.

The reason was oil.

[sandnsea]

88. Ideology

Some people are predispositioned to disregard everything the US says because the US only wants oil or has some ulterior motive. The same people who were against intervention in the Balkans and Afghanistan. They manipulate the facts to support their ideology too.

[LondonReign2]

90. Ah, the old "some people" crap.

There is a difference in making a reasoned and logical decision, i.e., this is about oil, and claiming a "predisposition to disregard everything the US says".

Gee, how about just saying "USA, love it or leave it" or maybe "You're a blame USA first liberal" and be done with it? :eyes:

It was ChimpCo we didn't trust, not "the US".

[sandnsea]

100. Some people are

Bush wasn't in office during Kosovo and alot of the people who objected to Iraq are the same people who objected to Kosovo and have called it an agression for corporate interests too. That's just the way it is, I didn't make it up.

[WildEyedLiberal]

54. Polls show that only 5% of Americans in late 2002

Believed that Saddam *DID NOT HAVE* or *WAS NOT ATTEMPTING TO ACQUIRE* WMDS. The IWR was expressly written to get inspectors into Iraq to answer that very question which 95% of the American public believed to be true. There were NO inspectors in Iraq prior to IWR. Had IWR been followed, the inspectors allowed free reign, Iraq would not have been invaded. That blame lies solely on Bush.

I don't blame Dem senators, but I do blame idiot DUers for a) not having enough reading comprehension to understand what the IWR actually said, and b) actually expecting me to believe that they were all a part of that 5%. I call a big, stinking load of bullshit on that one.

DUers who blame IWR let Bush off the hook and attempt to rewrite history by ignoring that, in late 2002, most people did not "KNOW IT WAS A LIE" are ridiculously transparent. I mean, I guess I could believe that DU is full of exceptionally smart prophetic, insightful people who knew about the DSM before it was ever released to the public. But then again, I could also believe that Clinton had Vince Foster killed, just like FR believes. :crazy:

[LondonReign2]

59. I see you didn't join until Oct 2004.

See this. You may want to reassess what we did and didn't know. Your assumptions are, to put it bluntly, wrong.

Wrong, and frankly insulting. Simply because you didn't know doesn't mean we didn't.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5246695

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

65. kick! n/t

[sandnsea]

81. "evidence is unclear" "inspections should continue"

THAT is what that piece says. So much for DU knowing a friggin' thing.

[xultar]

106. oopps wrong place to post. ssorry.

[WildEyedLiberal]

144. EarlG's post doesn't address IWR or flat-out deny WMDs

But thanks for trying.

[mikelewis]

66. No you would not have....

This is not a flame, it's just a fact. If you were a Senator, then you would have understood your responsibility. You would have found out everything you could before you made that decision. You would have made calls, you would have read both sides. You would have asked those who voted against it, why they voted against it. You know how I know that? Because you're here and not on the Free Republic.

They didn't do their job. It's as plain and simple as that. They can back-pedal and stammer all they want to but they failed. Okay? They screwed up huge. They failed to meet this challenge head-on and now they are paying the price. I'm glad they are finally getting their shit together but they have a long way to go before I will trust their decisions without intense scrutiny. Some have earned that trust back and others have not. Time will tell I guess but you're fooling yourself if you think you'd have voted for this war. If you're here, it's because you refuse to be fooled again.

[Critters2]

70. Absolutely!

I knew, because I knew about the Project for a New American Century, and I knew about Leo Strauss' political philosophy, and I knew that Rummy and Wolfowitz had studied under Strauss. I'm not saying everyone would have known these things, but if a little nobody rural pastor in Iowa knew, there's no excuse for a single member of the US Senate to claim ignorance. They simply didn't do their job!
:kick:

[mikelewis]

74. Then welcome to heaven, pastor....

progressive heaven that is.

[bliss_eternal]

76. No flames here, xultar.

I was very upset and hurt at the time. I didn't understand what was going on or how and why our senators voted as they did. I had a feeling they were being lied to--that we were all being lied to. But what can anyone really do with that? A feeling? In this country--not much.

They are human, our senators. Who can say now what their motives were then? After 9/11 everyone and everything seemed on edge. So many felt that someone had to pay for what happened that day. Sadly, not everyone that felt that way was on the right, either.

Govt. and the senate is a big game it seems. It's easy for me, and everyone on these boards to stay true to their beliefs and values and say we wouldn't have voted for war, no matter what. But unfortunately, govt. being the colossal beauracracy that it is I don't know if the choices are always as easy for them.

There are so many things to think about and consider when you work in government--they don't call it 'politics' for nothing.

In an ideal and perfect world, they would have or could have done the right thing. But who knows what they were told behind closed doors, or how they were treated. Maybe they feared voting no, because their constituents had other needs they had to fight for--needs that may have gone unmet or been turned down had they not 'played the game.' I hate saying these things or even admitting that this may be their reality, but I know it is the way things are done there.

We've all seen how the right works. It isn't about fairness, it isn't about truth. For them it is a constant 'WE are in power NOW, it's OUR way, neener, neener, neener--suck on it Dems!' As they smack their asses and give the left the finger. How can one function in a system like that?

I understand what you are saying, xultar. I don't think you are wrong or worthy flame bait at all. LOL!

Seriously--I've seen far worse on this board. ;)

Take care and thanks for considering their perspective. :hi:

[Eric J in MN]

80. Barbara Boxer and Russ Feingold and Dennis Kucinich didn't

buy the White House lies.

[Telly Savalas]

101. Not just them but nearly half of the Democratic Senate caucus

and more than half of the Democrats in the House.

The "we were duped by lies from the White House" crowd has never adequately explained why they were fooled while a majority of Democrats voted against the Iraq War Resolution.

[xultar]

114. I'm an ordinary citizen. I was duped. Would you hang us all?

[Telly Savalas]

119. I'm not suggesting we hang anybody.

As a fellow ordinary citizen I obviously didn't have proof one way or the other either. I just found it awfully suspicious that the White House talked like they were so damn sure about the WMD, but seemed so unwilling to cooperate with the inspectors to point them to the location of said weapons.

Members of the House and Senate on the other hand are handsomely compensated to be knowledgable about such matters, and should be held to a higher standard. The majority of these Democrats saw the intelligence and voted against the war. So how was it these people weren't duped, if the intelligence supposedly led folks like Kerry and Edwards to believe the IWR was a good idea? I've yet to hear a good answer to this question.

(And I don't mean this as a mindless attack on Kerry and his ilk. John Kerry is a fine man and would have made a really solid president. He may have fumbled the ball on the IWR, but I'm still glad he's on our team.)

[Skittles]

87. I would be ashamed to admit it

BUSH STOLE THE ELECTION; HOW MANY CLUES DID THEY NEED ????

[xultar]

105. What people don't know about me is I'm honest. I don't hide behind

the fuckin WWW and pretend.
IF you go to any message board and there is a xultar if it is me you will notice that I'm the same person.
I'm no fake ass faker fuk. I'm me. So why be ashamed to nbe yourself?

[Skittles]

131. how could you not spot such dishonesty in this misadministration?

how was ANYONE fooled? I will never understand it. Maybe I had more insight because I've put up with that lying piece of shit bush for over a decade but to me their greed, dishonesty, lust for power and sheer arrogance is on display for all the world to see EVERY G.D. DAY. How could they have fooled people so easily???

[B Calm]

95. How long would it had taken you to realize that Iraq didn't have WMD's?

Would you have realized it after the first couple days into the war? After all Saddam didn't use WMD's against an invading army..

Would you then have believed the even bigger lie that Saddam moved and hid them?

[xultar]

104. I think it was after we reached Baghdad. IF they had them they would have

used them by then. I know I would have.

[B Calm]

157. Would you then have chose to believe even a more ridiculous argument

that Saddam moved and hid those WMD's? Never could understand why people believed in that one, was Iraq saving them for a rainy day? Common sense is all I ask from a politican, and this bunch in Washington sure disapoints me!

[xultar]

161. ahhh yeah. Isn't that what we are doing with our WMDs...hiding them

for a rainy day? What about Israel, they have WMDs surely they are saving theirs for a drizzle.

[Junkdrawer]

96. I'm not surprised. n/t

[xultar]

103. I bet yo uthink I'm a fuckin freeper. I bet you think you're better than

me.

Well you probably are. At least I'm nonest. What is funny though is y'all keep wondering why we keep losing elections. Well I'll tell ya. you forget normal everyday uninformed americans and you think you're better than us.

That's fine....but get your asses out of the clouds. EVVERYBODY HAS SHIT THAT STINKS.

Humans make mistakes. I'm human. What are you?

[SlavesandBulldozers]

112. you're obviously not a freeper. For one, you admit a mistake.

I admire you for your post.

[xultar]

113. Thank you!!!...

[Junkdrawer]

162. So let me get this straight. Hillary's motto in the 2008 primaries is:

"Given the information I had, I'd do it again. And if you still think I should be held accountable, you're a fucking liberal elitist!"

Wow. Powerful!

[DanCa]

99. I was on the fence until a week after the invasion. I mean if saddam had

WMD wouldn't he have used them to retaliate against us? I also think I still had a little more trust in the chimp not to invade in unarmed country. No I can't believe a word out his two face mouth. I miss the days when you thought the president of the us was a good guy.
Gawd I miss Bill Clinton.

[WI_DEM]

107. Well are you saying that all the senators and representatives

who opposed it including Byrd, Kennedy, Feingold and Boxer are idiots because they didn't buy W's intelligence?

[seabeyond]

108. also saddam wasnt letting inspectors in, also we didnt know that

in oct once saddam saw bush was going to invade he gave up and said he would have his army work with bush and bush turned him down. we learned that after we went into iraq. i think that is a big one that we should be yelling about.

[newspeak]

109. why?

War is only to be used as a last resort!!! How many innocent civilians have been killed in this war and Desert Storm I? Saddam was our man--we sold WMDs to him, he convened with us before attacking Kuwait (by the way another stellar symbol of democracy (sarcasm)-was Kuwait slant drilling into Iraq oil fields? I saw the documentary on PBS after Desert Storm I, Saddam was bulldozing bodies (that we killed by bombing) so that we would not see the devastation, the infrastucture that we destroyed. He was trying to cover up the civilian casualties. Remember, the media was spinning that Saddam not only had WMD's, but that they could reach the USA; therefore, we were in peril. Now who believes such bunk? I guess the majority of the American people. It was not only that he had WMD's, but that he could launch an attack against the USA---fear, fear, fear.......

[JerseygirlCT]

111. I won't flame you, I understand. But

my knee-jerk reaction would have been extreme distrust of any information coming from the administration. I remember wondering how people like Kerry could believe a word they said. Just amazed me.

Perhaps I've grown too cynical.

[leesa]

115. Nah....they didn't even bother to question it. Didn't even bother to

query Powell's UN presentation when it was completely discredited within 3 days. Sorry. The CIA was clearly saying there was no case. The UN inspectors were clearly saying there was no case.

This is total BS on their part...they thought they could get away with it and get the oil.

[mmonk]

116. I would not have.

I knew Hussein was basically powerless, a dictator who could not even fly from one end of his country to the other and had doubles as protection. He had no standing air force nor navy. He headed a secular government that had a brutal streak towards Islamic movements in his country, so an al queda link didn't seem to make since. I knew about the neocons and their world view including "regime change" before he pushed for war. It also didn't make since to me that bush attacked the terrorist camps in Afghanistan with minimal troops and mostly through proxy using the northern alliance and then quickly started amassing more troops than he used against them around Iraq and started stepping up bombing air defense targets. None of it was making sense and I emailed Senator Edwards at the time to not vote for the IWR.

[ultraist]

117. To those unwilling to forgive

What do you propose? That we eliminate every elected Dem who voted for the war and end up with Repub controlled Congress for decades to come?

It's time to move on and work towards our goal: ending the war.

Kerry and Edwards have both admitted it was a mistake, what the fuck else do you want from them? Shall we burn them all at the stake?

Talk about cutting your nose off to spite your face.

It's time TO MOVE FORWARD.

[newspeak]

121. and yet,

when Hitler started committing his atrocities, before the gas chambers, they just used bullets to the head, photos where shown to congress and they did nothing. Not until Hirohito signed an agreement with Hitler and bombed Pearl Harbor. Our country even turned away Jewish refuges. Why? Because it is about profits and we had some of our own Nazis here. Gen. Smedley Butler was 100% correct, war is a con game. I bet Noriega and Saddam have some interesting stories to tell.

[haydukelives]

118. I'm not afraid to admit that I would have voted AGAINST the war

[Swamp Rat]

120. Some of us aren't!

:D

[seaglass]

125. I understand Xultar. While I was against the war since day 1

I will admit that 2 of the reasons that my decision was easy were:

1. There were no consequences if I was wrong
2. Never trusted Bush, wouldn't put anything past him

Obviously 1. does not apply to Congress

And I can't blame Congressional D's for not being as distrustful as I am.

[The Wielding Truth]

126. I saw through the Colin Powell performance and didn't see the connection

between Saddam and Bin Laden ,except for them both being employed by CIA, I didn't see them working together, and remembered the mistake the Russians made by going into their own mess in Afghanistan. I saw the over-whelming desire Bush Co had in using their military power to secure something other than US security. I thought this country was way past this stupidity and lack of planning until our response to 911. We were unprepared and still are unless the real reason for our presence in Iraq is to keep it unstable until be can somehow own it or control the entire region.Either way it's not what a moral,human rights proponent,and conscientious democracy should ever aspire to do.
NO I did not agree to the war. There were more responsible reactions to Saddam's grandstanding.He was not a terrorist he was an actually dictator who wanted what all dictators want, more power.If we were needed by the Iraqi people then we should have used all the powers of the UN to help us help them. Good leadership would have moved the UN and other nations to respond with them.
After Iraq, I really felt the next move was Syria, and then Iran.I saw no stopping this crazed patriotic desire to dominate no matter the cost and without a reason or plan.The WMD thing seemed, to me, like another what ever sticks.I was and am still furious with the lies.
Well ,we all here @DU, feel the frustration in the way that so many still don't see the slide into dictatorship we are on. Bush getting all his ducks in a row.Filling his nest with only the most loyal, whether or not they know what they are doing.
Will we ever see a governor who will represent with the principles of progress and honor to earth? Why can't we be improving all life instead of dividing fossil fuels and focusing on having so much more than we need?
Let' fire this bunch. Even if you forget about the deceit and manipulation of the press.They have made too many mistakes and got too many killed and cost us too much money.

[liberalpragmatist]

129. I might have too - I opposed the war in Spring '03, but I was undecided...

... in fall '02. I knew it wasn't an imminent threat, but I did think Saddam Hussein was a potential threat and it made sense to pressure him into letting weapons inspectors back into the country.

Now, once the inspectors GOT in and didn't find anything and once the UN didn't authorize a new resolution and once Bush decided to go to war even though FRANCE said they just wanted THREE MORE WEEKS - then I knew it was a sham and opposed it.

I may be totally wrong in this, but my guess is if you had a vote for war in late February or March '03 it would have been very different from the vote in October of '02.

Now, even in October of '02 I don't know if I would have voted for it. It was VERY broad and I didn't trust the Bush administration. But I don't think that resolution, given the timing, was a totally black-and-white case. Remember that even the UN looked likely to authorize action against Iraq at the time.

[carolinalady]

141. The inspections-- I think that helped feed my belief. If I

remember correctly, Sadam wasn't quite open and forthright with the team. That was another reason why I believed the party line.

[liberalpragmatist]

143. Yeah.

I was very much against the invasion when it actually occurred. But March '03 was very different from October '02. At least as I remember it, the case for threatening war was much less clear cut in October than in March.

[LoZoccolo]

130. I probably would have too.

I really didn't expect that they were lying about it until you saw how they'd evade certain questions about whether or not Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, or started acting like they already knew when the inspectors were in Iraq looking for them and couldn't find them and that the inspections were a waste of time. When they just started acting really weird in front of everyone. But that wasn't really until a while after the vote as I see it.

When people say they "knew" Iraq didn't have them, they really don't have any credibility with me. They didn't "know". At best they could say that the administration was acting as if they didn't care either way, but they can't say that they "knew".

[JohnnyCougar]

132. That's fine. At least you admit it.

All the Dems had to do before 2004 was to admit that it was a damn mistake. Unfortunately it has taken too long for them. They kept saying their vote wasn't a mistake, and that's what really pissed me off.

[carolinalady]

142. I do agree with that statement. Even the dumb blonde that I am

realized at that point that this war was a lie.

[Quixote1818]

133. I was originally for putting more pressure on Iraq but never in a million

years expected we would actually start blowing the fuck out of the country. The way Cheney and Bush and everyone sold the war it was pretty scary but I was doing enough reading at the time to be suspicious and while I had no problem with Dem's voting to put pressure on Saddam I just didn't think Bush or anyone would actually do what they did. Call me naive but I grew up in a peaceful time and unprovoked war started by the US seemed surreal to me.

I don't blame Edwards and Kerry and others for voting to put pressure on Saddam as I might have done the same thing. I was never actually for war though and believed if we did attack it would create more terrorism.

[Norquist Nemesis]

135. Not to mention being called UNPATRIOTIC during that time!

The administration was freely calling anyone who dissented as unpatriotic. And if a person happened to also be a Democrat, they had the added distinction of being weak in the war on terror.

[derby378]

136. The price of freedom is ETERNAL VIGILANCE...

Our Democratic Senators were not vigilant. As a result, Iraq is in ruins. Its citizens are being tortured by CIA interrogators. Over 2,000 of our soldiers died over there. And we are so fucked over as a result.

[Mr_Spock]

140. I knew they were lying by watching their faces.

I suppose that might not fly in the Senate, but I would have used that alone to vote against it. My intuition on these things is rarely wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

145. Given taht I sent a hubby to OIF and then kept sending

material to my delegation trying to educate I think I woudl have been among those who voted no...

That said, the intel briefings they were given.. group think at times takes over and they tend to be far scarier.

They did not have the time I did to digest this.

[U4ikLefty]

146. So you would "be sorry" for your ingorance/fear? How nice.

What a "good German" you would've made.

[LynnTheDem]

147. How come I knew it was a pack of fucking BULLSHIT. Ron Paul (R) knew.

Several republican senators knew.

The DIA knew.

The CIA knew.

The DoE knew

The USAF knew.

The IAEA knew.

The UN knew.

Canada knew.

Mexico knew.

In fact 162 out of 191 nations knew.

And said HELL NO.

Shouldn't ALL senators with the power to wage war have known?

HELL YES.

[salin]

152. I was against it... BUT I do understand it

and... this is key... just before the senate intel committee cut off their hearings into prewar intel... the following item was disclosed (briefly reported than - down the rabbit hole)

The original NIE, prepared by the intel community, was chock full of caveats and footnotes with each item of 'evidence' as in (x has not been verified by a second source, or y was told to us by q who has in the past been unreliable as a source...) Yet - the version of the NIE that was presented to congress just before the vote had ALL of the "evidence" BUT was stripped down of all of the intelligence caveats. They were given a scare document that was - by intentional ommission - fraudulent.

When those preparing the document were asked if they knew who changed it - they said they had NO idea. And we haven't heard of it since.

BOOM!...no due to Roberts - and the compliant press... it was a "plop" er...what was that? a tree falling in the forest with no witnesses?

[roguevalley]

153. no flames, sweetie, but I don't care if I wouldn't get re-elected. I would

never vote for this war.

[JNelson6563]

155. What of those smart enough to vote "no"?

You seem to be forgetting those who voted "no". Levin, Stabenow, Boxer, etc.

A "yes" vote was political manuevering.

[rman]

158. then Dems were pretty stupid

to believe those obvious lies; to not see that what the WH had cooked up was not in accordance with reality, and to believe for instance Colin Powell's presentation before the UN - to fall for a few blurry satellite pictures and a vial with white power.

Just how gullible can one get?

[bornskeptic]

163. Colin Powell's presentation before the UN

was several months after Congress voted on the Iraq resolution.

[Zhade]

165. I wasn't fooled for a second, but I admire your honesty.

NT!

[serryjw]

167. Too many against the invasion

I'm going to give you as much as I have


Resignation From 2nd Diplomat...good Read!
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/03/10_2nd-resign-letter.htm


President, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2003/03/06_krieger_powell-resign.htm

Charles J. Hanley, special correspondent for the Associated Press and winner of a Pulitzer Prize in 2000, wrote a devastating 2,500-word critique of claims made by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his influential Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction
http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1971092

A REAL Goodie!( look around this website...there is so much)
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_timeline_of_the_2003_invasion_of_iraq&iraq_themes=aluminumTubes

I can keep going.....
http://www.counterpunch.org/giebel05082004.html

I have another dozen articles opposing the war before the invasion...if you want them PM me