How come WE knew?

[leftofthedial]

Democrats who supported king george's empirical rights in the IWR claim they were misled, or what's worse that they were right to authorize the illegal invasion of Iraq, but that king george and his gang have bungled the job.

How come these Congressional insiders didn't know what we here at DU knew in 2002-2003--that the war was based on lies, that king george is a criminal, that Iraq had nothing to do with 9-11, that there were no WMDs, that the bush cabal wanted war in Iraq in order to enrich themselves and their friends, that the bushgang were bound to fail miserably, that Iraq would become a distraction from the rest of the "war" on "terror," that war in Iraq would be catastrophically destabilizing both inside Iraq and in the Middle East . . . ?

How come we all knew that back in 2002, but the "leaders" of the Democratic Party either didn't or find it politically expedient to pretend that they did not? How many of them were willing then--and now--to place their own political careers above the lives of hundreds of thousands of victims of this egregious crime?

[blm]

1. They trusted Bill Clinton that he had inside knowledge that they didn't reIraq.

And most of them wanted weapons inspections as proof.

[DURHAM D]

4. How does Bill Clinton get into this story? n/t

[mike_c]

6. Clinton maintained the illusion that Iraq was not disarmed...

...throughout his terms in order to block the lifting of sanctions.

[DURHAM D]

9. Clinton was always told by the CIA and Tenent that Iraq had WMD

However (and this is a big however) Clinton had no plan and would have never invaded Iraq for precisely the reasons the US has not been successful there.


Cheap shot and dishonest post to suggest otherwise.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. The CIA did not claim that Iraq definitely had WMD.

That has been pretty clearly documented: there were qualified claims (very qualified) that Iraq might have some weapons and some active programs. Blaming Tenet and the CIA regurgitates the rightwing fallback position after nothing was found, and ignores the deliberate efforts by the War Party to manipulate the intelligence concerning Iraq and WMD in order to remove all negative reports, unqualify all qualified positive reports, and otherwise cook up what amounted to a complete fabrication regarding the real status of WMD in Iraq. They cooked the data. The question is, how many of our Democratic leaders, Clinton included, played along?

[mike_c]

39. Clinton killed more Iraqis than dubya has, cheap shot or no....

He was very thoroughly invested in keeping the truth about Iraq hidden.

[leftofthedial]

42. Clinton had issues, but . . .

I don't think he killed more than 655,000 Iraqis by anyone's count.

[mike_c]

44. more than a million, by most estimates, approximately 500,000 of them...

...were children. Most died of disease or hunger during the economic blockade. Some, of course, were blown up by coalition bombing.

[OzarkDem]

58. Careful

that's a right wing talking point. Clinton didn't kill anyone with economic sanctions, Saddam Hussein did. Clinton used the tools that were at his disposal, he didn't have a lot of choices.

[mike_c]

63. no, Clinton worked to block the lifting of sanctions, etc.....

That's a "right wing talking point" you'll find on a lot of left wing sources. Clinton had numerous opportunities to work with the U.N. and UNSCOM to lift sanctions, but he did not. Saddam Hussein did not kill Iraqis with economic sanctions, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 did.

[cali]

122. Of course Saddam is guilty

For fuck's sake, man. Yes, Clinton is partially responsible, but your eagerness to absolve Saddam is laughable. Saddam absolutly had the resourses to prevent those deaths. Or do you think the billions- yes billions he was siphoning off and spending on bizarre palaces, were justifiable?

[leftofthedial]

59. The UN number of children was about 150,000 I believe

excess deaths due to economic sanctions and destruction of infrastructure due to the Gulf War and successive bombings. And sanctions were not entirely Clinton's doing. Also, it is a comparison of apples and oranges since millions of excessive deaths most certainly will occur over the next decade due to the bush cabal's utter destruction of infrastructure, loss of professionals and creation of violent anarchy.

Although I do agree with your basic premise that Clinton is not blameless for the debacle that is our foreign policy in Iraq, hid contribution is miniscule next to king george's.

[mike_c]

67. no-- most estimates range around 1,000,000-- here are some sources....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_sanctions

"....hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, disproportionately children, died as a result of them, <5> although certain skeptics claim the numbers to be less. <6> <7> <8> UNICEF has put the number of child deaths to 500,000.<9> The reasons include lack of medical supplies, malnutrition, and especially disease owing to lack of clean water. Among other things, chlorine, needed for disinfecting water supplies, was banned as having a "dual use" in potential weapons manufacture. On May 10, 1996, appearing on 60 Minutes, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) was presented with a figure of half a million children under five having died from the sanctions. Not challenging this figure, she infamously replied "we think the price is worth it", though she later rued the comment as "stupid."<10>

Denis Halliday was appointed United Nations Humanitarian Coordinator in Baghdad, Iraq as of 1 September 1997, at the Assistant Secretary-General level. In October 1998 he resigned after a 34 year career with the UN in order to have the freedom to criticise the sanctions regime, saying "I don't want to administer a programme that satisfies the definition of genocide". Halliday's successor, Hans von Sponeck, subsequently also resigned in protest. Jutta Burghardt, head of the World Food Program in Iraq, followed them. According to von Sponeck, the sanctions restricted Iraqis to living on $100 each of imports per year."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,232986,00.html

Squeezed to death

Half a million children have died in Iraq since UN sanctions were imposed - most enthusiastically by Britain and the US. Three UN officials have resigned in despair. Meanwhile, bombing of Iraq continues almost daily. John Pilger investigates

Saturday March 4, 2000
Guardian Unlimited

http://www.accuracy.org/article.php?articleId=44

There are many many more-- just google....

[Codeblue]

78. Wikipedia

is not a reputable source in my opinion. Seeing as how it is user edited, you never know what dimwitted crap will show up there.

[mike_c]

80. how about directly from UNESCO...?

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/ethique.htm

But the wall of silence is starting to crack after reports from UN bodies that the sanctions may have killed more than half a million children under five, and because of the despair of humanitarian organizations and the revolt of UN officials who have resigned from their jobs in Iraq. Even the U.S. State Department’s website, long silent about reports of the plight of civilians, has posted remarks by Congressman Tony P. Hall, who returned from Iraq at the end of April 2000.

“I fear that no matter how quickly sanctions are lifted, the future of most of the people I met in Iraq will be bleak,” he writes. “That is because its children are in bad shape, with a quarter of them underweight and one in ten wasting away because of hunger and disease. The leading cause of childhood death, diarrhoea, is 11 times more prevalent in Iraq than elsewhere–while polio has been wiped out throughout the Mideast, it has returned to plague Iraq’s people. Schools and water systems–the infrastructure any nation’s future depends upon–are decrepit and hospitals lack basic medicine and equipment. Ordinary civilians have exhausted their resources and their health trying to survive on $2 to $6 per month. . . . It will take Iraqi people a generation to recover from their present situation.”

[Greyhound]

99. Typical. You give 2 sources and the only thing she does is say she

doesn't like one, fails to address the other at all, and when you provide another she doesn't respond at all.

[ProSense]

68. "And sanctions were not entirely Clinton's doing."

Cry me a river! The Democrats in Congress are criminals, but, oh, don't blame Clinton too much. He only killed 150,000 kids, not 500,000.

Hillary Clinton will have some time explaining this during the primaries!

Talk about crazy logic and kooky posts!

[TankLV]

88. and so the circular firing squad begins it's tour of duty, right on schedule...

and the repuke body isn't even cold in the grave yet...

[Katzenjammer]

96. Think of the UN's count of children over the course of Clinton's time

I believe the UN reckoned that the sanctions, for which Clinton is responsible, killed 500,000 kids. How many adults also died?

[mike_c]

98. the U.N. estimated the total was between 1 and 1.2 million...

...while the Iraqis claimed about 1.5 million. That's total deaths, adults and children combined. UNESCO estimated that about 500,000 of those deaths were children.

[Katzenjammer]

100. Thanks, Mike. I knew it was an ugly, near-genocidal number.

I just couldn't remember exactly how bad it was. Probably because it turns my stomach.

[Andromeda]

121. You're just full of it....

If you're going to make such blanket charges you'd better back it up with proof.

[madfloridian]

19. Clinton was president, of course he knew.

And Hillary was his wife. Of course they knew. They knew Iraq had been bombed for years, even up until Bush came into office. We bombed everything. There could not have been WMDs there.

They had to know. It is just plain fact. There was no dialogue before the vote, they said nothing. It was full speed ahead.

[blm]

25. Who were the Democrats in senate and congress going to trust the most for

whatever inside info was available on Iraq at the time?

If Clinton was saying it was the right thing to do, that would be a bigger influence on them than Colin Powell.

[Katzenjammer]

101. There's that "imperial presidency" again. Congress is supposed to be independent of

and in opposition to the President. That's that whole "checks and balances" thing. They're supposed to ignore what the prez claims and do their own research. That's why they have staffs and budgets.

[blm]

110. The point was that congress WASN'T getting the inside info Bush was getting, so Dems

would naturally heed Bill Clinton's opinion on Iraq as he would have had access to so much more than they ever could have seen. And be mindful that UN also authorized a Resolution - it just didn't MATTER to Bush what either resolution stated - he was violating whatever there was, anyway.

[Katzenjammer]

119. No, the point is that Congress is supposed to be independent.

And they have people with the clearances and need-to-know to get access to any intelligence data they want to see. Do you think the intelligence oversight and budget committees work in the dark, blm?

There is no excuse at all for their behavior. There just isn't.

[acmavm]

2. Phooey. They knew. They were too damn cowardly to stand

up for what was right. They didn't have the guts to face the people and tell them that the asshole in the White House and his thug buddies were lying through their teeth.

If we knew from what info was out there, how could they not? They have access to much better info than we do.

[Agnomen]

11. They were too cowardly

to oppse Bush after 9/11

[procopia]

85. They were too cowardly to stand up to him before 9/11

The truth about the 2000 election and NORC study results for example.

[jwirr]

35. Would you have the guts to stand up without the evidence?

They may have known or suspected but they did not have the evidence to present to the American people.

[mike_c]

38. I don't elect them to take the easy way out and hide behind...

...political cover. Not in matters of war.

[jwirr]

115. Neither do I but I expect them to deal with issues using existing

evidence. The evidence they were presented with was lies from *ss and co. Without real hard evidence we are simply acting on impulse. We have only recently had actual evidence regarding stealing elections and the lies we were told. We the people and Dems in Congress had even less evidence that there was going to a 9/11 (*ss knew and many of his people but not us). When it came to Iraq I was not basing my opposition on evidence but instead a real distrust of *ss and right wing religions. None of us had much more than that.

[leftofthedial]

43. why did they need "evidence"?

all they needed to do was vote "no" and cite their concerns

[acmavm]

52. What do you mean? There were intelligence reports out there.

There was the fact that Iraq had been suffering under sanctions for how friggin long may I ask? And there was the fact that that pointy earred lying sack of shit told blatant lies like 'Saddam wasn't allowing the inspectors to do their jobs'.

And then there was the OSP that Sy Hersch and everybody and their frigging mothers knew were cooking the books and they said so.

And then there was Joe Wilson who blew the whistle on the Niger scam.

And then there were that warnings from the CIA that the info from Dougie and the boys was iffy. And there were the reports from the UN about the lack of nuclear capabilities that Iraq had and that there was no discernable research in that area. And the IAEC (Int'l Atomic Energy Commission that had been monitoring Iraq.

And there was enough information for us here to feel comfortable and correct in our position that they were lying their asses off.

What the fuck ever.

[jwirr]

116. All of this information you are siting was JUST coming out

around the time of the war vote. Most people had heard nothing about it. And *ss and co. were rushing to war so that none of it could be studied for any length of time. I still think that an awful lot of people on this board are expecting miracles from plain humans and are naturally going to find themselves upset time and again when their politicians do not turn out to be Gods.

[acmavm]

123. 'Most people had heard nothing about it"??? Sure they did, you

and I did. We say bush and rummy lying on the television about the inspectors. We heard Clark on t.v. (for as long as they allowed that to last).

Like I said, the Dems who voted for the war had far far more (and better) info then someone like I did. And I knew better than to believe the criminal cabal.

[acmavm]

124. OOPS - Dupe

[dbt]

84. Damn right I would.

And my evidence would have been at LEAST as reliable as that presented to Congre$$ by the regime. I would have challenged the administration to convince me and my constituents that a country which had 2/3 of its airspace controlled by foreign powers, which was regularly overflown by CIA satellites capable of reading a license plate from 22,000 miles straight up, and which had been damn near crippled by sanctions could somehow develop a nuclear weapons program without us knowing about it.

Fuckin-A RIGHT I would've had the guts. Our Democrats were scared of being laughed at on TV, is all.

:grr:
dbt
Remember New Orleans

[TankLV]

89. the minute they presented their "cartoons" in lieu of photographs and other

IMAGINARY "evidence" I KNEW it was all a LIE.

It is THAT simple. I would have damned well had the guts! It was EASY!

Only FOOLS refused to see.

And to trust that WAR CRIMINAL?! After what they pulled during the SELECTION?!

We had the capability if seeing a pimple on a fly's ass back in the early 60's, and these WAR CRIMINALS pulled this crap.

I was screaming BULLSHIT at the top of my lungs at the TV the entire time - I'm lucky I didn't have another heart attack.

I've refused to watch TV news ever since...

[AtomicKitten]

95. it was Where's Waldo

and pictures I'm pretty sure Bush colored in with his executive crayons

[jwirr]

117. But no one would have listened to you.

[rman]

93. It's the war mongers who lacked evidence

How much guts does it take to stand up up to that?

You need evidence to go to war, not evidence not to go to war.

[Cameron27]

102. Best line in the thread...

"You need evidence to go to war, not evidence not to go to war."

[jwirr]

118. They gave "evidence" that the American people believed. We

could have stood up and screamed our heads off, which many of us did, but they had the CIA, Pentagon, ect. on their side - at least they made it seem that way. I am not saying that they were right I am saying that with the American People blinded by their lies no one would have heard us. It took almost 5 years to get power back in our hands because until *ss made the mistake of ignoring the needs of NO most people were still blind. If our Dems had all stood up without hard evidence the only thing they would have earned would have been the scorn of all those blind people who finally came around to our side in 2006 because until January they still do not have the power to change the votes on any issue.

[rman]

120. again you promote the idea that you need evidence not to go to war,

while only the reverse is true.

A majority called bullshit when the Bush admin made their case for war. How come congress and senate accepted the admin's 'evidence' while most of the world did not?
A vile containing white powder and computer renderings of chemical labs are not convincing evidence, the US WMD claims were in direct contradiction with UN findings over the previous ten years or so. You don't need evidence to prove that; it is the Bush admin that lacked evidence, yet US representatives fell for it almost without exception.

[mike_c]

3. before the inevitable replies of "there was no sound information" begin...

...let's all take the time to recall that Scott Ritter has testified that UNSCOM and the intelligence services of the coalition nations knew that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" by the early 1990s and certainly by the mid-1990s. Furthermore, Iraq did not kick the U.N. inspectors out-- they were pulled out by Clinton in 1998. Iraq agreed to restoration of unconditional inspections in 2002, and the inspectors were again kicked out in March 2003, not by Iraq, but by George W. Bush.

In other words, our understanding of the reality was based on the truth, not the propaganda.

[Warren Stupidity]

30. there was no sound evidence...

that Iraq had any WMD or WMD programs. There was a lot of UNSOUND evidence, cooked up by untrusted sources with questionable motives, brought front and center by a white house directed rump intelligence agency, under the direction of one Duck! Cheney.

[Union Thug]

5. It took me a computer and google to blast holes in all of the lies.

What the hell was wrong with our so-called representatives? Yeah, that's still an open wound with me.

[hvn_nbr_2]

13. They didn't yet know about the google.

They were afraid of being called soft on something or other and unpatriotic. It never occurred to them back then that they were allowed to respond to false accusations in any way but to hang their heads.

[TankLV]

90. There was a calculated effort to support that dumbass even tho they knew better

in hopes of neutralizing any questions about their "patriotism", etc, in the aftermath of 911.

THAT turned out great, didin't it?!?!

Same thing, but with MORE feeling 2 years later...

Maybe they have learned something?!

[Magleetis]

7. We were

not the only ones who knew. Millions of people all over the world protested against the war before it was started. They were dismissed as focus groups. I can't remember who said the remark about opening the gates of hell, but they were correct and how. Bush should pay for this blunder. I hope one day he gets whats coming to him, cause we tried to warn him.

[warrens]

8. We weren't betting our professional lives on it

What do you do if the Repukes SWEAR they have the evidence? Are you willing to risk being totally wrong? Look at how few actually voted against the war. At some point, you have to figure that the other side wouldn't lie THAT blatantly because they'd be committing political suicide. Well, they did, but most Dems couldn't conceive of that, inside the beltway.

[leftofthedial]

18. we're talking about WAR

Leaders should risk anything and everything when it comes to war.

Plus, we're talking about a known gang of criminals (1980 October Surprise, Iran Contra, etc., etc.) in the Executive Branch

and abundant readily available information that cast doubt on their lies.

they're either cowards, corrupt or complicit IMHO.

[warrens]

23. It's not so easy from the inside

They were given a peek at some incriminating stuff and told solemnly that there was much more. It's tough to call someone a liar without proof. Even the people who voted no on the war didn't call Bush a liar; they just said there wasn't enough evidence.

[Old and In the Way]

31. Agreed.

We knew...well, we were pretty sure we thought we knew. But who cares what I know? If I'm a US Democratic Senator I have to make a choice. Vote against it and if there is an event, hope it isn't in my district or vote to give the pResident the authority to deal with WMD if they do exist.

Now, what if all the Democrats had voted, in unison, against giving them the IWR? And what if there was another 9/11-type of an attack? Here's what happens-

1) We still go to war with Iraq
2) Republicans and their Media Operation paint the Democrats as terrorist appeasers/traitors.
3) Martial law is, of course, declared.
4) Party and Game over.

Remember, we hadn't even had a 9/11 commission report yet.

I understand the crass politics that got played. I also think that the Democrats ought to use the IWR as the basis for starting investigations that will lead to impeachment. The IWR was qualified on getting the UN approval and evidence that there were WMD. All of the UN inspections were telling us they couldn't find any....so what was the rush to go in? Seems that Bush signed his own impeachment by violating the terms of the IWR.

[leftofthedial]

45. So better to play politics and let hundreds of thousands die?

I know what they did.

But why didn't they know? Many of us not only knew the bush cabal were lying, we knew it would turn out like this. Why did we know and those who are supposed to be "in the know" didn't?

Or maybe they did know and they are all scum. Your scenario makes them scum. They traded the blood of others for their careers.

As for the 9-11 Commission Report--it is a whitewash intended to sanctify the official cover story lies, nothing more. Congressional representatives don't get to decide when they get to face issues. We didn't have a 9-11 Commission report and we knew.

I'm not buying one syllable of rationale from any politician who supported this war or who voted for the IWR. Period.

[Old and In the Way]

66. Under the scenario I laid out....I guess the answer is yes.

If you think this administration was behind 9/11, then the only conclusion, at that time, was...these guys are playing for keeps. Vote against the Resolution and be prepared for a 9/11 Reduex. The end result still being a war with Iraq but now with a One Party State.

If you think that's silly, then you must agree that AQ really did attack us. If they could pull off such a feat on 9/11, certainly there was a compelling reason to believe we could be only minutes aware from mushroom clouds here. Would you want to be a Senator who votes against and, say, your city...maybe Worcester, MA, gets vaporized? It would be a hard sell back to the constituents on defending your vote, no?

While no Democrat would admit to the 1st scenario, I certainly wondered if that was what the vote was really all about. Arguing your high ground position today is quite easy, given 20/20 hindsight, the way history has gone down, and no responsibility for your opinion at that time.

Again, I don't view an affirmative vote on the IWR as a carte blanche ticket for this administration to invade and declare war on anyone. From my read of Democrats who voted on this, it was clear that they were telling Bush that he could use this as a mandate to disharm Hussein of WMD...IF he had them and IF he wouldn't divest himself of these weapons. He didn't have any to divest himself of, so Bush had no basis to invade and destroy Iraq. Democrats should now use that resolution to investigate with the intent to impeach. All the IWR did was give Bush the rope with which to hang himself.

It really is quite simple...this was not a Democratic resolution demanded by Democrats. The vote was foisted on them by an administration whose dark intentions where not well understood. I still think they, at minimum, LIHOP'd 9/11, so I had no doubts that we'd have seen another 9/11 done again on US soil had the Democrats voted, en masse, to oppose the resolution. In which case, there'd be no DU today and we'd be debating this, amongst ourselves, in the re-education camps.

[jgraz]

36. betting our "professional lives"???

You do realize how cheap that sounds. Who the fuck cares about their job when people are being sent to their deaths?

And by the way, that's coming from someone who actually did lose his job due to anti-war activism.

[mike_c]

41. so political expedience is the correct way to decide matters of war...?

Wow.

[The_Casual_Observer]

10. They are basically stupid actors with law degrees and family money

What do you expect them to do? Go out on a limb?

[janx]

12. It's posts like this

:rofl: that make reading DU so damned much fun! :rofl: I love this place.

[leftofthedial]

48. LOL

!

[valerief]

14. Anthrax scares. nt

[leftofthedial]

60. at least in part

you are right

[PATRICK]

15. Fear of an outburst

of logical competence and patriotic blindness lead them to follow the lead of untrustworthy leaders because some mythical definition of those merely holding certain offices gives them some infallible trustworthiness. Members of the club with known records for mendacity and corruption and fake intel coerced from bureaucratic underlings were on one side. On the other the guns of the corporate media were lined up like North Korean artillery against the Dems. More unbelievable than opportunism and fear is the credulity of people "up there" regarding any number of transparent crimes and crises they fail to rate or detect.

The last myth is that with better provisioned and more numerous troops Iraq could have been secured away from becoming the nightmare it is. Many still believe that without realizing the Bush and neocon determinism that doom ANY plans whatsoever for a secure and independent, undivided Iraq. In several key ways, even with the military given a better hand, the whole situation would have been undercut and eventual chaos come to pass. profiteering, imperialism, deliberate setting of group against group, removal of Iraqis from control over their own affairs or "reconstruction", permanent military bases, and tons of corruption and demons in details in the public civilian sector alone.

I'll tell you what a more competent initial war would have meant. A slower fuse in Iraq and an immediate hubristic mess in Iran/Syria. And this is what where the suppositions and hopes of Dems favoring an older hawkish ME policy would have ended up in any case in Bush's hands especially, and maybe any brighter substitute. Meanwhile more foreign nations getting bribed or coerced by the oil looting would be dragged into a real WWIII scenario. Bush's failure and the Dems submitting initially to the failed experiment has made the people of Iraq take the full brunt of the war for this century's fate. Blasting our way through the 21st Century is longer a real option even if some myth of American intervention is still residing in what ifs and simple re-calculations.

In retrospect Germany could have won both world wars handily. But that is to sell the determinism of human incompetence tragically short. Given more time and chances and the same stupidity, same actors, the same results must eventually occur- worse or longer off.

[gratuitous]

16. We knew because . . .

We're evil al Qaeda sympathizers who hate America, want to see lots and lots of dead soldiers, and delight in seeing our political, intellectual, and social superiors made to look like a bunch of imcompetent chumps.

Or so I gather from the whining currently emanating from the ranks of the policy elites, who were so sure this little bit of foreign adventurism had no downside whatsoever.

[Bjornsdotter]

17. Lubner's Disease

Many sad cases of no spine.

Cheers

[leftofthedial]

47. I agree

[Stinky The Clown]

20. They ALL knew it as well or better than we did. Their votes were simply cowardice.

Recall what the national mood was back then.

They didn't want to be seen as 'weak' on terrorism. Parse the votes any way you will, but it comes down to cowardice.

And if you want to think they *didn't* know, you can not deny that they'd heard of the doubts. On something as serious as preemptively invading a soverign nation who had done NOTHING to us, they had a DAMNED SERIOUS obligation to AT LEAST ask questions.

Sorry, but there's no way to spin the reasons for their votes.

All that being said, I am not in the least opposed to the idea of forgiving them for that vote. Indeed, for the most part, I have. What they may well NOT have been able to forsee was the unmitigated disaster the supposed 'grown ups' in charge of the war would make of it.

[mike_c]

46. but it was a war of aggression no matter what the outcome....

That is my main objection-- it was precisely the sort of crime against peace that the Nuremburg Principles were established to prevent.

[leftofthedial]

49. bingo

they are culpable and can't spin their way out of it

if they didn't know, they were criminally negligent

if they did know, they were criminal, period

[leftofthedial]

61. no one possibly could have imagined

that bush is a fuckup and a liar

[Stinky The Clown]

64. I'm sure they thought it would be run by Cheney and Rummy with the Bush boy .....

.... doing what he did in college .... cheerlead.

That was snarkily stated, but the sentiment is serious. I don't think they thought Bush would be in charge (again, given what was common wisdom back then).

[William769]

21. We didn't know for sure.

And I would call anyone a liar that says otherwise. We had our suspicions, but thats it.

[leftofthedial]

50. call me a liar then

I knew it then just as surely as I know it now

the "reasons" for war were lies

the "war" was illegal

the occupation is un-"win"-able

[jgraz]

22. Excellent. Fucking. Point.

This has pissed me off to no end. They knew exactly what Chimpy was going to do with that authority and any Dem "leader" who says otherwise is either bag-of-doorknobs stupid or flat-out lying.

Either way, anyone who voted for the IWR is not qualified to be President. And that includes my boy Edwards, sadly.

[leftofthedial]

51. I totally agree.

I will oppose any Presidential candidate who voted "yes" to IWR all the way through the convention.

[jgraz]

57. right -- key point: *through the convention*

After that, I'll grit my teeth and go to work for them. But I really hope I don't have to.

[leftofthedial]

62. ...

:thumbsup:

[jwirr]

26. Because not everyone is into activism and reading left leaning

books, sites, magazines and newspapers like we do.

[jgraz]

27. But one has to assume that members of Congress were as informed as we were

If not more.

[ripple]

28. Spot on

the writing was on the wall clear as day, in permanent magic marker. I know I'm a cynic when it comes to the current band of thieves, but even folks I know who aren't political followers (and certainly aren't as skeptical) knew what was coming down the pike.

I don't buy for a second that the dems who voted "yes" somehow believed the adminisration. It was purely a political maneuver and one that blew up in Kerry's face in 2004. I'm sure that looking back at things purely from a political perspective, Kerry would much rather have fended off the "weak on terror" attacks, than to be painted with a term used to describe summer foot wear, WHILE STILL being portrayed as being weak on terror.

I defended the hell out of Kerry's IWR vote when he ran in 2004, but to be honest, I've never truly believed that he didn't know war would result from the passage of that resolution.

[Pithy Cherub]

29. Premature political expediency reinforced by their

sense of self-preservation rather than joining the adults in the room saying we need more information. Now as most of them actually went to an accredited law shool and presumably got degrees, that whole gather assess and judge the facts and quest for truth piece was summarily MIA while they were voting without all of the facts. The Aye voters had shiny stars, 4th of July fireworks, victory parades and pictures of being on the victory/mission accomplished podium with the boy king. The reality is our worst nightmare. Then they did a jr. minty version of not acknowledging the massive error, lack of judgment and failed leadership until years later for most of them and ther are still some spectacular bush-like hold outs on that.

[jgraz]

32. K&R

[doc03]

33. I can't say I knew they had no WMDs, but we all

knew they didn't have anything to do with 911. We did know they had WMDs at one time since we sold them to them. Even is if they did have chemical weapons or even a nuke we knew they had no way of delivering it here. WMDs were not used on 911 anyway. That's why even though I voted for Kerry in the general election I have little use for him. I think he just forms his opinions on which ever way the wind blows on any day. He went to Vietnam then when he comes home he sees the country is turning against the war so he then opposes it. Ths same with the IWR, he voted for it then after things started going bad he says he made a mistake.

[leftofthedial]

53. anyone with two brain cells to rub together knew the bush cabal were lying

about WMD

they lied repeatedly about inspectors, Iraqi cooperation with inspectors, who forced the inspectors to leave


their "evidence" of WMD, if it had been even half true, would have been obvious to the UN inspectors

their "evidence" (aluminum tubes, Niger yellowcake, etc.) was all discounted by reputable observers at the time

we didn't suspect. we KNEW.

[TankLV]

91. and all their claims were refuted THE SAME DAY or a day later at the latest.

WE had access to all the research available AT THE TIME IT WAS OCCURING.

How come they didn't?

I remember it as if it were LAST HOUR!

[Old and In the Way]

34. Here's an interesting way to look at this.

1) Do you think 9/11 was an inside job?

if the answer is yes, do you think the Democrats were right to keep themselves from getting set-up on a vote that was designed to paint them traitors? After all, if this administration did LIHOP-MIHOP 9/11...what would keep them from setting off a tactical nuke and blame it on the Iraqis before declaring war on them and martial law here?

2) Do you think AQ really did 9/11?

If the answer is yes, then wouldn't it be irresponsible not to be supporting the WOT? After all, who really knew the extent of Iraq's ties with AQ and the extent of their plans to attack us again?

Remember, we are dealing with the facts as known (or not know) in the Fall of 2002.

[leftofthedial]

54. are you saying that Democrats in the Senate

knew that 9-11 was an inside job?

The facts, as known in 2002, were that Iraq had nothing to do with al Qaeda and nothing to do with 9-11. The one bit of evidence, the mythical meeting in Prague, was debunked within days of its release and denied even by the administration (except for Dick Cheney) before king george's infamous 15 words State of the Union lie-a-thon. In fact, every terror expert on the planet not in the employ of the bush cabal pointed out correctly that al Qaeda hated Saddam, probalby more than they hate us.

[Old and In the Way]

71. Would your facts have mattered if a nuke had gone off in some American city?

What would have mattered is, who voted against giving our President the flexibility needed to deal with GWOT?

Here's a backdrop of what the American people were thinking in September of 2002-

Measuring Support: Now vs. Aug. 29

Think Bush has a clear policy on Iraq 60% 40%
Approve of Bush's handling of the situation 65% 52%
"Very important" to oust Saddam 68% 56%
Support U.S. military action against Iraq 68% 56%
Support delaying it for weapons inspections 77% n.a.
Support attacking if inspections are blocked 81% n.a.


http://abcnews.go.com/sections/ThisWeek/DailyNews/Bush_iraq_poll020915.html

[leftofthedial]

76. so polls and belief that the bushes would nuke an American city

excuse yes votes on IWR? I'm still not following.

Of course the public was duped. Most of them had no access to facts and are too lazy to research or follow issues. That's why we elect "leaders."

Sorry to be dense, but I don't see your point. :shrug:

[ProSense]

37. All anyone needed to know was

that the threat wasn't imminent! The IWR was a vote to continue inspections because Bush was building a case for war.

Kerry:

...But it is not imminent, and no one in the CIA, no intelligence briefing we have had suggests it is imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that he is about to launch an attack.

Here is what Bush did:

He told a lie in the SOTU in January 2003:

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Source: President Delivers "State of the Union", White House (1/28/2003).

Then he sent a letter and report to Congress which included lies and false information.

Nothing was going to stop Bush from going to war. He had the War Powers Resolution. He had the a 2001 resolution to pursue the 9/11 terrorists (the same one he claimed authorized him to spy on Americans). He had a war budget for Afghanistan. He had the country believing that Iraq had WMD and was responsible for 9/11. Some people enlisted to go fight in Iraq for those very reasons!

Bush was going to war no matter what. The IWR was to hold him to inspections and to agree that he would only go to war with Iraq as a last resort!

Bush lied!

[mike_c]

40. Iraq had already authorized continued inspections-- there was no need...

...for the IWR in that regard. Iraq had agreed to unconditional inspections in September of 2002. Bush rushed the IWR through in mid-October because he could not allow Hans Blix to certify Iraq's compliance with the disarmament mandate. Congress aided and abetted a war crime.

[leftofthedial]

56. I'm a hardass on this point.

You are dead-on right. Congress aided and abetted a war crime.

For us to not hold the bush cabal accountable and to seriously consider supporting someone who voted for IWR for President in 2008 is unconscionable.

[leftofthedial]

55. yes, king george lied. king george ALWAYS lies.

The IWR was not to hold him to inspections. That is revisionist history.

The IWR was to grant him the power to go to war if he wanted to and deemed it necessary. Everyone knew that. It was the subject of innumerable editorials, news discussion, debate and commentary at the time.

ALL the repukes (except Chafee) are criminal vermin. The Democrats who voted for IWR are either stupid, cowards, liars or criminal vermin.

[ProSense]

65. You're trying

to spin a strong case out of BS! The argument you make isn't rational. Name-calling isn't a case. This is typical of the non-Democrats on the left and Kucinich supporters, it's all they have left!

[mike_c]

69. LOL-- so this is about Kucinich supporters, LOL....

:rofl:

[ProSense]

72. LOL! No, you misread my post:

"non-Democrats on the left and Kucinich supporters."

[Gregorian]

82. There we go. I nearly forgot.

That's all anyone needed to know. And that is by definition the one reason to start bombing another country.

It was not an imminent threat. Period.


However, I knew he was going to have a war from the moment he swore in.

[EstimatedProphet]

70. Maybe it was groupthink

Since all the Congressional leaders spend so much of their time together, and in the company of the same people, it would be easier to get lost in the same thoughts. We however would be able to see the truth because we looked at it from an open perspective.

I remember the leadup to the war in DC, and everyone running around afraid of Iraq, and I would ask them if they actually were afraid of a country on the other side of the planet that had no navy and no army in comparison to ours, and they'd just get pissed off. They weren't thinking, and trying to get them to think made them mad. EVERYONE seemed to be that way too, so i think there was a groupthink element going on.

The key point: I had no TV at the time.

[Cameron27]

73. k&r

I agree, not one Democrat should have voted yes on the IWR, no excuses.

[AtomicKitten]

74. WE DID KNOW

I was writing a political column at the time and had reams and reams of data readily available from the government that contradicted point-by-point this administration's case for war on Iraq.

What really is the difference of opinion on these boards is how we are individually processing the rush to war. I cannot look at my son's face every day and just be thankful he wasn't sent to fight this illegal, immoral war; it isn't enough to assuage the magnitude of the consequences. I have decided on my own, based on my opinion on weighing the facts, that I simply cannot support any of the Senators that voted yes on the IWR resolution in the primary.

I am thoroughly disgusted with the MSM's claims that the Baker Commission will offer Junior a "parachute" out of the Iraq quagmire. Bullshit. There is a special place in hell for the Republicans that shoved this war down the throat of America. But I cannot and will not sweep under the carpet the Democrats' yes votes on the IWR, going along to get along.

While the usual suspects here (a pro-Kerry sub-sect) hurled vile personal insults at me (deleted by the mods) on my thread discussing this issue, calling me a liar (how the hell can an opinion be a lie?), and ridiculing the gravity with which I view this issue, I am not moved.

This is my opinion, as valid as everyone else's here at DU, and I will not be bullied or ridiculed or vilified by a handful of people that would turn themselves inside out to justify a vote I find so vile.

This OP has it exactly right. K&R

[ProSense]

75. "While...(a pro-Kerry sub-sect) hurled vile personal insults at me (deleted by the mods)"

What is with you?

[janx]

92. "how we are individually processing the rush to war"

Yes indeed.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

77. My husband and I say this to each other all the time. It was such an obvious

charade that led up to the war. Even their delivery was so bad and over the top

Condi and the mushroom cloud quote is like watching the worst senior play ever. Same with Bush's SOTU. All melodramatic, lip chewing, pauses.

These guys needed a diversion from people asking hard questions about 9/11 and playing (gasp!) THE BLAME GAME. Plus they wanted to invade Iraq since before they even took office.

The only ones trying to beat them back were the UN inspectors, as I recall.

Let's remember who the bravest men were, the ones who dared to buck the jackal pack of the press and radio who would question the patriotism of anyone still capable of critical thinking (which they too had abandoned for themselves.)

Dennis Kucinich and Russ Feingold are the bravest men in Washington. They voted their conscious when all around them handed over theirs just to be on "the right side" of the vote. Cowards who all hung together because then the blame would be harder to hand out.

The $64,000 dollar question-

What did they all see in those intelligence briefings that caused all to walk out with those shaking heads and ashen faces and be so convinced that invading Iraq was a NECESSITY? an IMPERATIVE?

[pink-o]

109. Don't forget Rep Barbara Lee

..from Oakland. She was so flamed for being a treasonous commie traitor, I'm surprised she kept it together as well as she did.

But she did cuz she had truth and right on her side.

[Gregorian]

79. For the same reason that I knew in 2000.

I may not know much. But I have a general sense of things.

The moment he was sworn in, I knew the wars were coming. His history. His name. His party.

And your question is one that has been on my mind all day. If they weren't bright enough to pull on the reins for the war, how are we going to get him out of the White House now?

I think there is more going on than we know. Maybe it's political fears. Maybe corporate.

I don't know why we knew. Maybe some people have good common sense. Maybe others don't. Maybe greed and fear overrode their votes. It didn't fool all of them.

Edit- Hans Blix and Scott Ritter. There are two reasons why I knew.

Edit again- Millions of people all over the world knew! So that is worth thinking about.

Meanwhile, I'm dying. Since Bush I've started getting migraines. And i'm in a world of agony here. Damnit.

[bleever]

81. We knew thanks in large part to William Rivers Pitt, Scott Ritter,

and the fact that we were curious, skeptical, and went looking for the info.

Movers and shakers in Congress thought they had the inside track with "secret briefings" and "special access" to U.S. intelligence. So sad. So very sad.

[xiamiam]

83. that is exactly why i dont trust the judgement or leadership of ANYONE who now says they were fooled

i wasn't fooled for one minute...i maintain that they did us a favor in some ways, revealing their true selves and willingness to be sheep...afraid to question for fear of being called a traitor...there was pressure, sure...but look what they've done...the politicians and the pundits...i hold them all accountable..and so should every generation which inherits this mess...history will not be kind to the do nothing boot licking congress...

[kdpeters]

86. THANK YOU!!! And you can include "humanitarian" warmongers among the scoundrels

No excuses for anyone who did nothing to oppose this insanity. However, 70% supported the war in the beginning. If 30% support it now, that means there's 40% that will support a weasel with excuses if only to validate their own.

Don't count on any of them ever admitting they were wrong from the start. It's just war. Politics as usual, right? Extremists on both sides and cooler heads staking out the middle?

Bullshit. It's war. Anti-war is ALWAYS the answer unless every other avenue has been exhausted and we have no other choice. Pro-war is opposite but not equal. It's immoral. Centrism is for cowards.

[TankLV]

87. I have no clue - that has been the top question on my mind ever since...

They all refuse to believe that that creature currently occupying OUR White House is truely evil and literally a son of a bitch...

[clarquistador]

94. Because special interests don't run us.......

The special interests are responsible for this war.

[tbyg52]

97. *I* knew....

And I didn't even know DU existed at the time. Didn't read nearly as many left-wing books and magazines as I do now. But I knew. So how hard can it have been to find out....?

[laundry_queen]

127. Ditto!

I read the odd blog every so often, and watched the news (U.S. and Canadian). That was it. No DU. And I KNEW just as sure as I do now. I wasn't any political junkie. I wasn't even all that educated (high school, that's it). I was definitely not a 'lefty peace activist' to begin with. SO HOW COME I KNEW AND THEY DIDN'T?

[JNelson6563]

103. I asked this recently myself.

Truly stunning. They knew what we knew. They pretended not to.

Julie

[sojourner]

104. i have always maintained, and stil do, that congrss critters were

afraid to say differently ----- why? that i don't know ---- but something existed at the time of which too many of them were afraid.
there were big bucks at stake in this whole fiasco...what lengths do you suppose someone like cheney would go in order to ensure nobody fucked that up?

also -- we in the netroots have the diligence and curiosity required to sift through the tons of garbage spewed by the propagandist media (also 'fraidy cats) and through our dialogue with each other arrive at a shared sense of truth backed up by real data. that takes time. also the luxury of critical thinking, which i b'leive is lacking in the halls of gov't - both sides of the aisle.

remember that for our resistance to the propaganda we have been rewarded with the label "conspiracy theorists" -- and so to be identified with us would also be seen as risky...

but now..........well, the big bucks have been raked in. they got what they came for - a bit less than they might have hoped, but enough for now. so there is no longer such a push to keep things quiet. i think they will let bush take the fall for them and step back into the shadows to wait for their next opportunity.

[Catchawave]

105. I'm guessing Dems were the minority party at the time

and those who spoke against it were then labeled with treason, and those of us on the front lines of peace marches were labeled whack jobs from the commie pinko left.

Where were those Democratic leaders defending the slander?

Maybe that's the issue we need to address, not to mention Bush answering the question "What noble cause did my son die for" ?

The rest is just politics.

[Pithy Cherub]

106. The Senate was held by Democrats.

Tom Daschle was the majority Leader. They could have changed the resolution - the IWR was co-sponsored by Democrats...

On edit:sigh.

[Catchawave]

108. Minority leader

sigh.

[Pithy Cherub]

112. Google is your friend. Majority Leader

Tom Daschle was the majority leader because Democrats were in the majority after Jim Jeffords switched sides. Ergo, Daschle was the majority leader and one of the supreme collection of politically craven idiots who voted for the war.

Fight on with facts but alas when you check the google you'll find Dascle was the Majority Leader. Huge sigh of happiness now, I've helped some one today learn something they did not know. :P

[AtomicKitten]

113. Time Mag Person of the Week: Tom Daschle -- New Senate Majority Leader

Work that Google.



Person of the Week - http://www.time.com/time/pow/article/0,8599,129675,00.html

Person of the Week: Tom Daschle

King of the Hill: The new Senate Majority Leader is ready for his close-up. All eyes are on Washington as the soft-spoken South Dakotan embraces his new role and steels himself for the many challenges ahead.

[Catchawave]

125. Apology, and thanks for the correction....

I was off a month, I believe the IWR was signed Oct '02, and the Dems lost the majority Nov'02. The dates mushed in my brain.

Apology to pithy too.

[mike_c]

111. but dems did vote against it and NONE have been labeled...

...traitors or suffered any political consequence whatsoever. That old canard is just a myth the enablers used to cover their tracks-- "I did it because the republicans would call me names otherwise." It did not happen that way.

[pink-o]

107. I've been trying to figure that out for 4 years!!!!

Remember when RoveCo started sounding the drums for invasion in October, 2002? Didn't you know EVEN THEN that this was a blatant political ploy to take advantage of our pain from the year before????

Not to mention that in Feb 2003 when Colon Bowel made his speech in front of the UN, the bloggers were already addressing the fact that the documents were forged, the drawings of chemical containers were bogus, and the weapons inspectors would be pulled out in March because that's when the weather in Baghdad was best to launch an invasion.

So...we peasants, we the hoi polloi, WE THE PEOPLE knew it for what it was. Remember, Chimperor was asked about the February 03 protests (which took place all over the f**king world!!!) and he said he didn't listen to "focus groups."

Well, 3000 American and 300,000 Iraqi deaths later, those "focus groups" delivered one helluva referendum on your fucked-up greedy little enterprise, you fucking killer!!!

Would it have been with the support of our own party 3 years earlier!!

[LWolf]

114. It wasn't politically expedient to know. n/t

[leesa]

126. The CIA and the arms inspectors said quite clearly it was unlikely

anything was left and that they were for continued inspections. They said it over and over. It's why Dubya knew he would not get the second vote at the UN. They had no excuse. It was loud and clear.

They wanted the war.