Would Reid have voted to invade Iraq if he knew then what he knows now?

[NNN0LHI]

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/01/sitroom.02.html

<snip>QUESTION: Do you regret your vote on the Iraq war? Knowing now what you know, would you vote differently?

REID: Listen, we're where we are. Had we had all the information, if the administration had all the information that they have now back then, they wouldn't even have brought it to the Congress for a vote. But they didn't. We only had the information we had. And as I stated on the floor prior to our going into closed session, we know that there were no WMDs now in Iraq. We didn't know it at the time. We know now, but we didn't know at the time, that there was no al Qaeda connection. We know now -- we didn't know then -- there was no 9/11 connection. We know now that they had no plan for winning the peace. But we didn't know that at the time.




I would just appreciate some clarity and I don't think that is asking too much. I would just like to know if he would have or wouldn't have voted to give Bush a mandate to invade Iraq if he knew back then what he knows today? I can't tell from that answer he gave yesterday. Does anyone else know what he would do after reading Reid's answer to the question? Just tell me one way or the other.

Don

[flowomo]

1. delete.

read it again. no comment

[lostexpectation]

2. denial

he knew what he knows now, then.

he indulged in the propaganda he knew was false

[mestup]

3. better question, "Now that you know they lied, what's the plan to get out?

I'd rather see the THs asking this question.


Vulnerable Senate Seats by State http://www.removerepublicans.com
Vulnerable House Seats by State http://www.ourcongress.org

[EVDebs]

4. All Dems then knew the War was being railroaded and R's would label

anyone voting against the war in Iraq as a traitor.

This question posed to Sen Kerry I believe at a Grand Canyon or park setting is said to be one of the main reasons people voted against him. I personally don't believe that, the Ohio vote games took care of the election along with Libby's delaying tactics...

[Johonny]

5. I always think this is an unfair question

If weapon inspectors had been allowed to finish their job and write their reports then the case for starting a war would have been a lot less. But the senate vote helped get the weapon inspectors back in Iraq. In and of itself the vote was not a terrible political choice for the country. I imagine many senators who voted yes in the months following the vote thought that the threat of war had worked to achieve peace. The final choice for war was the presidents and the presidents alone. And it's clear now he had far better information than the senate. It's also clear he almost certainly could have waited for the weapon inspectors to do their job. It's clear now he didn't want to wait, not because of a clear and present threat to this country, but because the news would have ruined the case for a war he wanted regardless of the facts. But I imagine it's hard for a senator to believe a president would openly go to war for personal glory and financial gain. Given the slow change in American public opinion it's clear the American public took a long time to believe a president would do this too. So how can I blame them?

[lostexpectation]

6. denial

do you not think all senators would not go to war for personal and financial gain? they infact did do so...

the influence of corporations in the political process outways any other consideration

the senators knew what they were doing

[Johonny]

14. well

prove me wrong. Show me the senate voted for a total occupation of Iraq and that only and the whole UN resolutions were just a bluff to the American people on their part too.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Would it be "unfair" to ask Bush the same question?

These people work for us. If your supervisor came to you at your work and asked you a question about something that happened on the job during working hours and you refused to give a concise answer what would happen?

Don

[Johonny]

15. My point was

The question is a basic yes or no question. But it simplies the very reason the vote took place and the subject matter that was in front of the American people. There is no way any politician can or should give a simple answer to a misleading question.

My supervisor comes to ask me questions all the time. And when they are unfair or misleading ones such as this question I tend to give lengthy explanations which point out exactly what should be the question and why I am answering that question instead. At my job I get paid to both answer questions, and more important make sure the right questions are being asked because peoples lives are on the line.

[lyonn]

10. Your interpretation of the reason for voting for the war

is one that I felt strongly about. We had a jillion troops already in the area and it seems we were trying to force Saddam to allow the inspectors back in which is what happened. But, when bush ousted the inspectors before they were finished there should have been an uproar in Congress. Bush was pretty sneaky the way he did all that because I believe many in this country were "hoping" he was blowing smoke, ha, not likely with that un-honorable person and friends. Inspectors out - bombing starts, no explanation other than the babble and lies he has repeated like a broken record for a year.

As we found out, if you can't believe your President about the reasons for attacking another country then your country is in big trouble, and we are now in big trouble.

[Johonny]

13. You know

When you look at the responses I got for my post. I can see why Kerry, Hillary and the lot have a hard time with this question. Clearly many democrats can't understand why the vote yes was not necessarily a bad thing. And what ever you may think about politicians, most politician like most Americans will side with the president when he tells them he needs leverage on a matter of national security.

I think there was a little uproar in congress. The thing is it's hard to remember because the press and most of America was tuning them out for "Navy Seals Rock." A lot of Dems paid for any mini-war protests they made, like not voting for the emergency funds bill. The last election made it pretty clear to me, too much of America wasn't interested in hear the information that is finally coming out. Politics can suck and sometimes you just have to eat it until the public favor blows in your direction.

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. Even I knew that the fables told about WMD were false at the time

I don't know why it was so fucking hard for these guys to see it. powell's weak presentation to the UN was further evidence that the WMD didn't exist. It was perfectly clear that the decision to invade Iraq was made in the summer of 2002, at that time 250,000 troops were sent to the ME.

When will these people owe up to the fact that this thing was all about 9/11 revenge, saving face, and doing the PNAC plan.

[longship]

8. Issue framing

Maybe it would be easier for Republicans to join with Dems on some issues if the Dems framed the issue such that people have a way to save face. For that matter, maybe it would be easier for people like Hillary and other Dem hawks, too.

Reid may be playing for a future concensus against the war once the truth is substantiated by soon to be revealed information.

Remember, many people in this country still believe the administration's words are still operative. Reid's words are not for our benefit, but for those who need additional, gentle persuasion.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Diane Feinstein just answered this question clearly and concisely on CNN

Absolutely not would she have given this madman a mandate to attack Iraq had she known back then what she knows now. Now that wasn't so hard. My hat is off to her.

Don

[LaPera]

12. Of course NOT!!