Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Nine people who have been right about almost everything in Iraq

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:57 AM
Original message
Nine people who have been right about almost everything in Iraq
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:46 AM by Quixote1818
All three of these gentlemen should be commended for their brains. Feel free to add to the list.

Edited to add four more people from suggestions below. It also occured to me that it was William Pitt who's writings turned me against the war durring the run up.


Howard Dean
Russ Feingold
Wes Clark
Michael Moore
Scott Ritter
Dennis Kucinich
William Pitt
Paul Wellstone
Jacque Chirac
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
speedoo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:58 AM
Response to Original message
1. Dennis Kucinich, Ted Kennedy. nt
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 10:59 AM by speedoo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmavm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. Yep, old Dennis called it too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dinger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. Yes, He Sure Did
I love Dennis :patriot:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madokie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #2
27. Dennis should be the first head of the Dept of Peace as he has advocated
that we need.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
37. Yes...Don't forget Ted Kennedy
He was outspoken against it from the beginning.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 10:59 AM
Response to Original message
3. just about everyone who isn't republican would be on that list.
:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
9. Well, people like Clinton, Edwards and Kerry all voted for the war.nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #9
35. ok.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
53. God, how I wish that were true
wait for all the rat worm stay the coursers that voted for this tripe :mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
4. Scott Ritter
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:02 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. Ritter was definately right about everything! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mortos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
7. Dick Cheney
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:04 AM by Mortos
(circa 1991)

I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we're going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we'd have had to hunt him down. And once we'd done that and we'd gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we'd have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi'i government or a Kurdish government or Ba'athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it's my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq.
At the Washington Institute's Soref Symposium, April 29, 1991 <3>

and again in 1992...

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.... Once we had rounded him up and gotten rid of his government, then the question is what do you put in its place? You know, you then have accepted the responsibility for governing Iraq.
August 1992, at the Discovery Institute in Seattle <4>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wielding Truth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #7
28. Things are so twisted now that Cheney actually sounded rational then.
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:58 AM by The Wielding Truth
To bad those problems weren't worked out before BushCo chose to remake the middle east.

The questions were there, yet ignored. This time,they have fought against any plans for stability.

What is the real plan? IF cheney was smart enough then to run through them they certainly crossed his mind this time. They must have decided that American lives were expendable as well as causalities. Just plan evil.

Great find, Mortos.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:03 AM
Response to Original message
8. Did they say they weren't voting for IWR because they knew Bush would
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:03 AM by blm
violate it?

Because, isn't that EXACTLY what happened?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
twilight_sailing Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:09 AM
Response to Original message
10. Wes Clark!
Seems to me he's a viable candidate for Pres. in 2008.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #10
18. Especially if we are still in Iraq. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
11. Saddam Hussein
He said he didn't have any WMD.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:12 AM
Response to Reply #11
13. How ironic is that? LOL!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flowomo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:11 AM
Response to Original message
12. yeah, me.... (and here's the proof)
These are two of my weekly newspaper columns from 2002 (both are also available online):

So what's the real reason?
By Rich Lewis, Aug. 29, 2002
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2002/08/29/edito18.t...

The idea of the United States attacking Iraq in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein is so ridiculous -- so stupid -- that the Bush administration can't be serious about it.

I am convinced that the constant and increasing threats to go and blast Saddam must be part of some complicated diplomatic strategy. But I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what it is.

Maybe we're trying to signal dissident forces in Iraq that if they make a move on Saddam, we'll be right behind them.

Maybe we're trying to provoke Saddam into making the first move -- so that then we can really cream him and claim it was self-defense.

Maybe rather than trying to provoke Saddam, we're just trying to freeze him -- make him so paranoid that he decides to behave.

Maybe the administration is just trying to distract attention from the economy with war talk -- which is dangerous but not nearly as dangerous as actually going to war.

I don't know. In fact, one of the reasons I'm writing this column is in the hope that the people who read it will come up with explanations that haven't occurred to me. Because, as I said, there just has to be some hidden agenda behind all this war talk. The idea of attacking Iraq is just too breathtakingly insane to take seriously. It couldn't possibly solve any of our problems and would almost certainly make them much worse.

Not to mention the likelihood of thousands of nice, young Americans dying horribly -- right along with thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, some of whom will be soldiers, but many of whom will be innocent men, women and children who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The main motive given for attacking Iraq now is that Saddam is planning to use weapons of mass destruction on us. Killing him -- and however many others get in the way -- is justified in order to prevent him from killing others in the future. You know, do unto others before they do unto you.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is a blanket excuse for violence that can never be refuted. It turns any perceived threat into a justification for war. And no one can prove that the obliterated enemy wasn't planning to attack first.

This all reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie that came out this summer -- "Minority Report" -- in which the police arrest and destroy people who haven't committed any crime -- but who a bunch of psychics in a swimming pool say will commit a crime. Just imagine George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld floating in that pool.

The hard fact is that we will not be justified in attacking Saddam until he has attacked us or someone we have pledged to defend. Period. That may be painful; it may cost lives because he just might attack us first -- but it is the price of behaving morally.

But forget all that. Who cares whether it's right or wrong to blow up a guy if you get what you want out of it?

Well, that's the other problem. Killing Saddam -- and a lot of other people in the process -- will not make the world a safer place -- and it is utterly laughable to claim otherwise.

First, we may sweep into Iraq with all our high-priced killing machines and not even take out Saddam. He might just slip away and set up shop somewhere beyond our reach -- transformed by us into an international Islamic hero, a beacon for every nutball fundamentalist from Kansas to Kashmir.

Can't happen, you say? Think Osama.

But suppose we do manage to evaporate Saddam. Who exactly is coming in behind him? Thomas Jefferson? Mahatma Gandhi? Please -- Iraq will be boiling stew of political and ethnic unhappiness, with lots of groups eager to wipe out lots of other groups. If somebody grabs control, who's to say he won't be another Saddam? Or like Osama.

Of course, we could try to run the place, or put in a puppet. That'll go down nicely with the Arab world, where we are so popular.

And speaking of the Arab world -- where we are so popular -- is there a better way to prove that we are the Great Satan than to charge in, guns blazing, killing countless Iraqis? It's hard to believe this will advance the cause of worldwide peace. Whose version of this war will be taught to millions and millions of Arabs and Muslims? George Bush's? They'll listen to Osama.

Like I say, attacking Saddam would be insane. That is so obvious.

Therefore the Bush administration must have some clever motive in suggesting it.

If I could only think of what it might be....

*****

Winning would be losing
By Rich Lewis September 26, 2002
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2002/09/26/editorial...

Have you noticed just how weird this whole war thing has become?

I mean, the president and his team keep rattling their swords, insisting they have to go and wipe out that bad guy in Iraq and they will do it, darn it, no matter what anybody else says.

And who needs the snooty French or the treacherous Germans anyhow?

And those chicken-hearted Democrats are just plain unpatriotic.

And we've got the troops and the tanks and the really big guns to roll in there and squash Saddam flat and put the world right again.
Comment on this Story RSS Feed E-mail this story Print Version

And we have to do that. And we will do that.

And then... nothing happens.

Weeks go by and George Bush and Don Rumsfeld keep talking about going.... but like Estragon and Vladimir in "Waiting for Godot," they stay.

In fact, I sometimes feel like we're living in the unwritten third act of Samuel Beckett's two-act absurdist play.

Like Estragon and Vladimir, we seem stuck in a gloomy and hopeless situation, threatened on all sides, at the mercy of a cruel universe, and wanting nothing more than to get back to the good life that we had just a long moment ago before the Twin Towers and the stock market fell. Before smallpox and color codes.

Beckett's two characters spend the entire play waiting for Godot to come to them, which he repeatedly promises by messenger to do, but never does.

In our cracked world, Godot waits for us to come to him, which we repeatedly threaten to do, but don't.

And usually when war is imminent, the leaders of both sides are busy making noise and shaking their fists at each other. Like the Israelis and the Palestinians. Like the Indians and the Pakistanis.

But the situation with America and Iraq is strangely different.

George Bush is out every day verbally pounding Saddam and shaking his fist so hard he risks carpal tunnel syndrome. Saddam, on the other hand, is as silent as Godot.

Sure, the Iraqi foreign minister pops up now and then to hurl a few insults at the United States and plead innocence, but where the heck is his boss? Has anyone told Saddam that 250,000 American soldiers might be knocking on the door of his palace any day now? If so, he seems to be taking it pretty well.

Believe me, I am not complaining. Any day without war is a good day in my book. Especially this war.

It isn't that I doubt that Saddam is a bad character. He is. Just like a bunch of other bad characters who happen to be in charge of whole countries. Like the "axis of evil" co-stars in North Korea and Iran.

It isn't that I doubt that we could rub Saddam off the Earth like a spot of bird doo off the hood of a car. Our Army could pound his army into sand.

Those are not the important issues.

Chances are that we would get bogged down in a bloody and expensive action in Iraq that would leave that country in chaos and, possibly, civil war.

We would ratchet up anti-American hatred throughout the Arab world.

We would further tighten the political vise around the heads or own allies as we force them to make ugly choices about whether they are "for" us or "against" us.

But forget all that. Imagine that we charge into Iraq tomorrow and that Saddam rushes out in his nightgown, takes one good look at all those imposing American boys with guns, and drops dead of a heart attack.

Imagine that the entire population of Iraq gasps in unison, blinks twice and then starts dancing in the streets, joyfully hugging the Americans who have liberated from the beast, Saddam.

In short, imagine that we get everything we wanted at virtually no cost.

It would still have been a horrible mistake.

Why? Because we would have endorsed the acceptability of striking another country pre-emptively on no grounds other than suspicion of future crimes. For thousands of years, it was considered a country's right to smash competitor powers whenever and wherever they could, with little or no justification. Might made right. It is a miracle of human progress that such behavior is now widely viewed as uncivilized and unacceptable.

It would be shameful if our country now asserts the rightness of attacking an enemies just because you can. Other countries will surely want to do the same; we will surely want to do the same again. On what grounds could we possibly oppose them, or stop ourselves?

The present situation may be absurd. But it is far better than unleashing a free-for-all of international military opportunism.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #12
31. Very Good! We should put you up for VP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beelzebud Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
14. Michael Moore
He seems to be EVERYONE'S favorite whipping boy, but Moore had it 100% correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. You are absoluty right! A true American Hero with raw courage! nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
earth mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
51. Michael Moore ROCKS!
That he is not more popular on DU is just the most bizarre thing.

Or maybe there are more freepers around here than we know. :crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
survivor999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
16. Go Howard!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chemenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:14 AM
Response to Original message
17. How could you forget John Murtha?
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:16 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Murtha voted for the war. He figured things out later.
He hasn't been 100% correct right from the beginning. He is someone I deeply admire though. A very courageous American patriot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
chemenger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:36 AM
Response to Reply #19
22. True there. But still,
he has since become one of the Iraq conflict's most vocal critics and I'm glad he's unwavering in his critisms against this misguided misadventure in spite of the flak he's taking from that dumbass Irey and her supporters during this election season. "Stay the course. Support President Bush. Fuck our soldiers and their families."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:14 PM
Response to Reply #22
42. Murtha deserves credit for giving our side credibility
Every time they try to swift boat him it just dosent stick. He is a true Patriot and a very brave man! One of my favorates!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MiniMe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
20. You need to add John Kerry. Everything he said in the 2004 debates
has come to pass.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Texas_Kat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:34 AM
Response to Reply #20
21. Sorry, no sale
Kerry voted for the IWR, then continued to defend his vote right through the election.

This list is only for those who have been right from the beginning.

(John Edwards doesn't qualify either -- no matter how sorry he is).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #20
36. Kerry tried to have it both ways in 2002.
"I'm against a war but I'm voting for a war."

Maybe he woke up somewhere along the line, but he was dead wrong in how he handled it when the decision was made.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #36
45. The IWR would have prevented war if IWR guidelines were followed.
If you believe the IWR led this country to war, then you obviously didn't read Bush's signing statement to the IWR.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:10 AM
Response to Reply #45
58. He trusted Bush -- Kennedy didn't -- Kennedy was right
Both Kerry and Kennedy are my Senators. Before the vote I called both offices to urge a "No" vote on the IWR.

kennedy's staffer said very simply: "Senator Kennedy is going to vote no."

Kerry's staffer did a lot of hemming and hawing about how "Senator Kerry has not made up his mind yet. He is aware of all of the opposition to this."

A few hours later kerry went on the floor and gave his "have it both ways" speech about how he was going to give the president the authorizatrion for this, "but I'll be looking over his shoulder to ensure he complies with this blah,blah,blah etc."

Kennedy knew Bush woiuld misuse that vote. He was absolutely correct.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #36
49. Just like Kucinich, FOR Inspectors in Iraq
Difference - Kucinich had no mechanism to get those inspectors into Iraq. There are two people who were right on Iraq, all the way down the line, Wes Clark and John Kerry. Both supported a resolution to make it clear to the UN that the US insisted on an Iraq inspections and disarmament process - neither supported war except as a very last resort.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #49
59. Kerry enabled Bush to break the spirit of the IWR. Period.
Maybe in theory you are correct. In reality, Bush's IWR was a transparent ploy to force Congress to give him unlimited power to go to war.

Kerry trusted that Bush would keep his word. He was wrong to do that.

Kucinich didn't trust Bush. He was right.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #20
54. 2004 Kerry ran a stay the course pro war muddle shitty campaign
yet in 2008, he might be the best shot for pacifist liberals...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosemary2205 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
23. Jacque Chirac
the guy who sparked a boycott of all things french (including fries) :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
peacetalksforall Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:42 AM
Response to Original message
24. Robert Fisk? Can we also add Paul Wellstone to the list?
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 11:43 AM by higher class
First vote in the Senate - against Iraq War 1.
Last vote in the Senate - against Iraq War 2.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #24
25. Done, I think my time to make edits is running low.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
boolean Donating Member (992 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
26. Jerry Springer, Al Franken, Jeneane Garafolo (nm)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
B Calm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:56 AM
Response to Original message
29. & Mike Malloy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
soleft Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
30. Noam Chomsky
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
benddem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
32. me too
I knew this would be a clusterfuck the minute they started hinting at it. No one however, listened to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 11:59 AM
Response to Original message
33. Even as a Wes Clark supporter, I have to give Howard Dean credit
for basicaly nailing EVERYTHING!!!! I don't think Howard has missed on any points. Same with Michael Moore.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #33
46. You believe Biden-Lugar version of IWR would have prevented war?
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
34. I don't like blowing my own trumpet but in all modesty ... me
I started predicting disaster in Afghanistan in 2001 and Iraq in 2002, both in detail and accuracy. Doesn't mean I'm a military genius, just being informed seems to be all the equipment you needed.

I also think Gen. Shinseki met with his "sideways promotion" over his advice on Iraq, i.e. troop numbers, would be taking your eye off the ball, dodgy intelligence reports, possibly letting Bin Laden slip through the net, etc. More than a few senior military officers had a career hiatus over Iraq, Rummy shouldered dissenting voices aside and replaced them with officers who saw things his way, Generals Franks and Pace were among the highest-ranking offenders.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Quixote1818 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:39 PM
Response to Reply #34
38. Yes, a lot of people on DU like you did an incredible job predicting
what would happen. My Dad wrote a fantastic letter to the editor talking about how Iraq would turn into a mess and how it would increase terrorism around the world.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheBaldyMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:58 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. I was told (in 2002) to go and 'hang out with Hanoi Jane ...
Edited on Mon Oct-23-06 12:59 PM by TheBaldyMan
... and my pinko friends"
The dimwit didn't know I'd take that as a compliment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrScorpio Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:45 PM
Response to Original message
39. What about me?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
survivor999 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 12:48 PM
Response to Original message
40. Add to the list: MYSELF
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SteveG Donating Member (833 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
43. Georgie Anne Guyer-conservative pundit
this lady called it as well - as well as several other conservatives as I recall.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AlGore-08.com Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:19 PM
Response to Original message
44. Al Gore - his speech from 9/02 is like a list of everything that's gone wrong
And he gave it three weeks before the Congress voted to authorize the invasion:

http://www.algore.org/index.php?option=com_content&task...

He's consistently been against the war and consistently been right in his criticisms...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:26 PM
Response to Original message
47. Give 'em 60 days and invade Howard Dean???
Sorry, you guys cherry-pick as badly as George Bush does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #47
55. Still, when push came to shove, and the protesters hit the street
Only Dean and Kucinich accepted the label "anti-war".

All the others were :patriot: :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
slaveplanet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
48. Byrd
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:47 PM
Response to Original message
50. dozens of people here
although not most people here
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mdmc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-23-06 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
52. KENNEDY ! KUCINICH !! Black + Progressive Caucus! Bernie!
www.bernie.org

Lots got it right. Kerry Edwards Clinton Schumer McCain Bush all got it wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 02:23 AM
Response to Original message
56. Bluebear
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-24-06 06:19 AM
Response to Original message
57. The (sadly late) Robin Cook...
who resigned from the British Government in 2003 in protest at the decision to go to war. Also Clare Short, though she was a bit slower about resigning.

And most people in the UK, from day one.

And most members of the UN - hence Bush disregarding the UN and going it alone.

And, to give credit where it's (rarely) due, even dear Daddy Bush seemed to have realized, when he was president, that doing something like this would be a Bad Idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon Oct 20th 2014, 06:29 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC