Only 16% called the war in Iraq a mistake back in April, 2003. How many

[hansolsen]

DU bloggers are proud to include themselves in that small band of siblings? Let me be the first to step forward and so state.

Here is an excerpt from the latest ABC/WP poll with the data:

Retrospective judgments of Bush's decision making are far more negative that they were two years ago as events were unfolding. For the first time in a Post-ABC poll, a majority (51 percent) called the war in Iraq a mistake. On the day Baghdad fell in April 2003, just 16 percent called the war a mistake and 81 percent said it was the right thing to do.

[wtmusic]

1. And what % of people who never watch television

thought it was a good idea, even back then?

Let's conduct a poll on ABC. We'll ask Peter Jennings if he thinks it was such a great idea to unabashedly promote this criminal enterprise...

[Jack Rabbit]

2. Hold your head high if you demonstrated in February 2003

From Democratic Underground
Dated February 14, 2004

The Left Was Right
By Jack Rabbit

One year ago this weekend, an estimated ten million human beings marched world wide against Mr. Bush's planned invasion of Iraq. They marched in major cities such as London, Madrid and Canberra, capitals of Mr. Bush's military and diplomatic partners in what passed for a broad coalition; they marched in Paris, Berlin, Tokyo and other major capitals of the world; they marched in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and other major cities of the United States, including San Francisco, where this writer marched with an estimated 200,000 others.

The message was clear: on one side stood George W. Bush, presumptive President of the United States, his aides and PNAC think-tankers, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and his aides and a small handful of other world leaders, set to invade a sovereign state with no provocation; on the other stood the people of the world, a teeming mass of humanity, led by the political Left to oppose them.

They said that Saddam needed be overthrown because he was a brutal dictator. We knew all about Saddam and made no apologies for him. We knew that he had plunged Iraq into two senseless wars, one with the blessing of the US government and one with its active opposition. We knew that he had used poison gas on his own people. We knew that he murdered thousands of Shiites in the aftermath of the 1991 war. We knew that he was one of the great criminals of modern history.

And still this did not excuse war. If Saddam was a criminal in 1991, we could have and should have brought him to justice in the aftermath of the war; President Bush chose not to do so. In February 2003, there was no immediate humanitarian crisis in Iraq for which Saddam was directly responsible; he was not a threat to his weakest neighbor; and he had no associations with the terrorists who attacked the United States on September 11, 2001.

Read more.

[Hosnon]

3. Represented in Athens, GA! eom

[Taxloss]

4. I was there.

A million people marching through the capital of a country of 60 million as its government held crisis meetings. Almost UK-raine, before Ukraine. Almost. An inspiring day.

[TheModernTerrorist]

5. Detroit, baby!

OH yeah, you'd better believe I was there... among other protests :-)

[HysteryDiagnosis]

6. If Saddam was a criminal in 1991

The slick people who were in high places in our govt., who supported Saddam whilst he was performing criminal acts should lose their immunity and be thrown in jail, interrogated, possibly abused and forgotten about. The Geneva convention should not apply to them, not in the least.

[Borgnine]

7. I was protesting in D.C. that day.

I'll never forget it, and I'm proud to be in the 16% that opposed this illegal war.

[alittlelark]

8. I went to all 3 San Francisco demonstrations.

I took my daughter to the last one. Heading back to SF in 3 days.

[hansolsen]

9. On edit, DU all by itself probably accounts for about 15% of the 16%. N/T

[jbnow]

10. How does that percentage change so much?

I was so against it and even had they found some weapons of mass destruction, I'd have still been against it (since the inspection teams were in there).

If they believed there probably was danger that only a war could stop why did they change their mind? Because it wasn't there? But if they believed the president thought so, even if it was an error, how can it now be wrong?
Because they now believe we were purposely duped?

Good they changed their mind I guess, but what the hell was making them support it in the first place? Still kool-aided up from 9-11? And if you support something as horrible as an unprovoked war, what changes your mind?