DUMB QUESTION: Did Dems believe Bush WMD lies?

[yurbud]

When they voted for the war resolution?

I don't just mean the lies about whether he had WMD, which they could conceivably be forgiven for falling for, but the assumption that if he had any chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons that he would be in anyway a threat to us.

I'm old enough to remember the Cold War, and most politicians are even older. The Soviets never nuked us and we never nuked them because we knew the other guy had enough to wipe us off the map. If Saddam (or Iran or North Korea for that matter), had a half dozen nukes or even more, they would have to know that hitting us with any or even giving them to terrorists who use them here would result in the their whole country being heated up a couple of million degrees. There would be no upside for using them. They are valuable as a deterrent and bargaining chip, but once used, invite total destruction. George Tenet was forced to admit as much in a letter to the Senate before the war, but it didn't get much play.

Do you think democratic congressmen and senators forgot something this simple, especially those who served in the military, or were they in on the joke with Bush?

I've written my senators about this, but haven't heard from them.

[GreenArrow]

1. quick answer:

They knew it was bullshit and voted for it anyway, because fundamentally, they agreed with the goals, if not the tactics. They knew.

[In Truth We Trust]

16. Agreed

[Just Me]

34. Well,...no,....you are wrong.

I know that for a fact.

Frankly, many (if not most or all) Democrats AND many (if not most though definitely not all) Republicans,...had no clue that they were being subjected to a coup.

Are they all still operating withing the realm of "politics"? Yes.

BUT, I am telling you,...your representation is WRONG!!!!

Even withing the game of politics,...betrayal can be unexpected, denied, devastating, difficult.

Reducing such realities to your assessment,...is simply gross.

Stop it!!!

[GreenArrow]

39. no, I'm not wrong

We aren't discussing all Democrats (or Republicans, for that matter); we're discussing those that voted for IWR. The facts were out there. They chose not to look at them. They ignored their constituents. They turned aside when Colon Polyp gave his farcical presentations at the UN. They ignored PNAC. They ho-hummed yellowgate. They repeated the canard that Saddam had thrown out the inspectors, and refused to be corrected. They turned a deaf ear to the country's allies. Overseas, there was little question that the endeavour was bullshit.

One is left with the choice: either those who voted for it voted for it believing what they were told, in which case they were voting out of expedience or wilfull ignorance, which is to say, they were incompetent, or that they voted for it knowing it was bogus, but believing in the underlying "security" issues.

I have little doubt that the Democrats would have preferred to not go to war as a first option, continue with sanctions etc. But do you honestly believe that if the inspectors would have been given more time, and still came up with nothing, that the Bushies would have been satisfied with that result? They would not. As Donald Rumsfeld said, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". One can hear them now. "Sadamm is not in compliance". "Thumbing his nose". "We know he has WMD". "Terror. 9-11. Blah blah blah..." The war would have still been on, with the Democrats on board, as before, probably even in greater number. And the shifting rationales for the war would have been no less bogus.

They weren't selling this war to themselves, they were selling it to the American people.

[Just Me]

45. The ones "selling" were OBVIOUSLY the neoCONfascists.

Just 'cause you're so bright doesn't mean everyone, especially professional politicians, are as bright as you.

Presumptuousness,...is not a character strength.

Is it.

[GreenArrow]

47. the same could be said for naivete

I presume nothing. It was sold from both ends -- with different sales pitches -- by Corporatists of both stripes. The sales jobs frankly insulted my intelligence.

Professional politicians are like everyone else; there are highly intelligent ones, there are idiots, and there are plenty with average intelligence. Intelligence is of little use when not tempered with wisdom or honesty, in which case it is mere cunning. Generally, when it comes to acting with character, professional politicians are not a group I look to as models.

I'm sorry if I've offended your sense of propriety. FWIW, I'm not the only one on here saying these things.

[WI_DEM]

2. Some Democrats were more concerned with the politics of

the vote than opposing it. For instance, most of those (except for Wellstone, may have been others but I don't remember) who were up for re-election in '02 voted against the Iraqi Resolution. While many Senators not up for re-election didn't vote for it. With the vote coming so close to the election--I think many Senators thought to oppose it they would be labeled as "soft on terrorism". Alot of good it did them; example is Max Cleland--voted for it, lost half his body in Nam and the repukes still labeled him soft on terrorism and defense and the voters bought it.

[AlGore-08.com]

8. DING DING DING DING we have a winner!!

The only other possible explanation is that some (or all) of those who voted for it were completely incompetent - - they couldn't figure out that Smirk's story about Sadam getting ready to nuke us was complete and total BS, and/or so clueless that even after watching Smirk up close for several years they couldn't figure out that he was not to be trusted to make the right decision about invading Iraq.

[eridani]

51. Cleland went down with the help of Diebold n/t

[Radical Activist]

54. Only Wellstone and Dick Durbin.

Those were the only two up for re-election that year who voted no.

[Q3JR4]

3. I never did.

'Course some would say that I'm not as smart as, you know, those people that were elected to congress to do the job they were elected for.

_____________________

On edit:

I'm also not really a democrat.

[dave502d]

4. Not a "DUMB QUESTION" THEY KNEW. N/T

[TimeChaser]

5. Nope

Back in the 2000 race I told people that Bush seemed like a person who could not be trusted. Turns out I was right.

[NV Whino]

6. Feinstein says she based her vote

on extensive information available to her committe that wasn't available to general public. (I forget the name of the committee--national security? foreign relations? whatever.) That statement was made before it was proven that all information was bogus.

Did she believe it? Don't know. I personally think she would have voted for the war anyway.

[Tinoire]

17. Oh yeah... That's the same "kiss my ass" letter I got from her

when I wrote.

Special information indeed!

[AntiCoup2K4]

23. Feinstein based her vote on the fact that her hubby is PNAC

...and a defense contractor, so she would financially benefit from the war.

[yurbud]

26. My question is whether she knew Saddam was no threat even with WMD

[leftchick]

27. I think a mushroom would have known that....

obviously our representatives in congress decide to be less than mushrooms when deciding when to go to war.

:banghead:

[Just Me]

38. Ah,...the cherry-picked stuff that's coming out,...is that what you're,...

,...talking about? The "leaks" proving that what was presented behind closed doors were bullshit?

[FloridaPat]

7. I seem to remember some of them saying the classified information

they got showed there was a big problem. Which is hard to believe since I wrote all my congress people telling them it was a lie and that bushco had planned to invade years before. But they ignored me.

www.whatreallyhappened.com has a comment I love. They point out that the MSM claim they were deceived. WRH wonders how they could be deceived when they have so many researchers and money then the little web sites like WRH and DU have such small budgets and knew it was all lies.

[oasis]

9. If it turned out Saddam DID have WMD what then? Dicey proposition.

[GreenArrow]

10. still not worth it

He wasn't an imminent threat. What, was he going to send one of his rubber-band propelled "drones" after us?

But it's moot anyway, as the "evidence" provided in support of the invasion was insultingly weak and transparent.

[oasis]

11. It's not easy for elected officials to roll the dice on national security.

That's all I'm saying.

[GreenArrow]

13. better safe than sorry, I guess

The evidence against Bush's war was pretty solid, so I'm not sure how much of a dice roll it actually was. Then again, I'm pretty damn cynical.

[oasis]

18. "Journalists" such as Judith Miller and Tom Freidman did their part in

tipping the scales. The fourth estate let the public down by promoting Rove's propaganda.

[GreenArrow]

19. glad to see you put "journalists" in quotes

Miller and Friedman are professional propagandists, nothing more, nothing less. The media's performance in general was execrable. It served its masters well.

[yurbud]

28. It's not rolling the dice if someone can't attack us and expect to live

Use some common sense.

The cruelest, most evil dictator would still have to have some reasonable chance of success before he launched an attack.

Any nuclear attack on the US would be met with overwhelming retaliation with the rest of the world's blessing or at least acquiescence.

Do you honest to God think Saddam is that stupid?

Would you do something that would guarantee your own death if you were sitting on a trillion dollars worth of oil?

In the case of both of his wars, Saddam asked for our permission first, and his switch of currencies he traded oil looks like the action of a guy who wanted to live to profit another day.

I repeat my origianl observation. Don't you remember the Cold War?

How is it we could stare down a world power that was roughly our peer, but we are pissing all over ourselves about a country that didn't even control its own airspace when we invaded?


Youi have to start thinking before they pull this scam again for Iran.

[oasis]

35. (a) I'm not a member of congress. (b) Saddams alleged WMD arsenal

included more than just nuclear. Democrats were pushing for the weapons inspectors to determine what was there. Bush was asked not to rush to war.

I suppose that I would have voted differently than Kerry, Edwards and other Dems. I understand why they voted the way they did.

[MisterP]

21. so...they couldn't let the smoking gun be a mushroom cloud?

[Solly Mack]

22. damn good zinger

[yurbud]

30. What would someone expect in return for mushroom cloud?

What would Saddam, Kim Jung Il or whoever runs Iran think they could gain from attacking us?

[Stinky The Clown]

12. I think it could be more complex than this

They voted for it knowing damned fucking well there were no WMD ...... and on the off chance there were, that Saddam would never use them. Remember Mutually Assured Destruction?

That said, I dare say none of them knew it would be this bad. They probably saw a few days of great teevee with our guys jaunting across the dessert, goggles in place, scarves flying behind them .... Lawrence of Arabias astride metal steeds.

A few quick skirmishes with the 'vaunted Republican Guard'. Saddam with his hands in the air. Film on Fox.

Nobody thought that Rummy would be this fucking incompetent. Nobody forsaw this.

Now ... if their heads weren't up their fucking asses .......

[GreenArrow]

15. they were warned.

they chose not to see...or believed, in the words of Madeline Albright, that "the price was worth it". They agreed with the ends, if not the means. "There was a right way, and a wrong way" to do it. And they are still supporting it today.

[hippiegranny]

14. As a DEM

my answer is no, I never did. Not for one freakin' nanosecond.

[Jane Austin]

20. This Democrat was very skeptical.

It seemed odd to me that all of a sudden in the summer of 2002 there was just all this talk about Iraq, as if it were inevitable that we'd go to war with them.

Then I started seeing Wesley Clark's analysis on CNN, and he was more than skeptical, which convinced me there was serious doubt.

On the chance that there were WMD's it seemed prudent to let the UN inspectors have more time to do their job.

One thing that never made sense to me was that if we really thought Saddam had chemical and biological weapons ready to use, why were we sending all those kids in there right into their range?

Gee, ya think bushco knew the soldiers would be ok because their weren't any WMD's?

[rfrrfrrfr]

32. Its easy to sit in the here and now and comdem them, but

They were lied to with convincing CHERRY PICKED evidence. I know I believed IRAQ still had some WMD. We all knew Bush was going to be bad, but lets be honest only a small minorty of people at the time believed Bush was capable of betraying his country in such a manner. And lets be clear here Bush did betray the country and he is a traitor at least as far as I am concerned.

When he was selected, most people like myself had assumed he was just going to be a slightly more icompetent version of his father, something we could grit our teeth and bear for 4 years. By 2002 we knew he was much worse but still doing what he did was beyond what most people considered him capable of.

I also think you are confusing the real world reason Iraq was invaded,(oil, war profiteering, and to save Bushes Presidency) With the Political bill of goods used to sell congress and yes the American Public on the war.

Remember there was a period of a couple months there where they kept changing why we were going to war until the found the WMD thing struck a chord with the people.

So did the dems know that the real reason we were going to war was oil and the other stuff and had nothing to do with WMD's and such? Most probably did, but thats not the same as the political game being played to justify the war.

If you think we have it bad now, just think how bad it would be if the republicans had the political ammo of the democrats not supporting the war on terror effort.

The republicans probably wouldn't even need to worry about the nuclear option in the Senate as they probably would have at least 60 seats if not more and I don't even want to think about the losses we would have incurred in the House.

It is only recently that the war in Iraq has started to loose favor with the American public.

The blame for this war belongs squarly on the shoulders of George Bush and his cronies, and to a lesser extent on the corporate media for failing to do its job properly.

To say the democrats knew they were being lied to and voted for it anyway is not only oversimplifing a much more complicated subject, but also erroneous on its face.

The biggest problem with the Democrats in congress is that they still think the republicans care about what they the minority think or have to say on anything. They don't. The Demorcrats in congress are nothing more than an annoying buzzing fly that they wish would go away so they can impose their wacko world view on the rest of us.

So stop acting like freepers, step back count to ten and lets not try and rewrite history just becuase we are mad that the Dems in congress have not realized they are largely irrelevant to the republican majority and are not taking every single opportunity to throw a wrench into the rethug facist machine like they should be doing.

[FloridaPat]

55. They had all those shots that protected them against anthrax. They

also had to wear those suits to protect them against I don't even know. But the evidence to prove they knew there were no WMD was: what did they secure 1st and 2nd? Oil wells and oil ministry building. When did they secure the sites that had nuclear materials they actually knew about? A WEEK later.

[FloridaPat]

56. Actually it's irrelevant whether they believed him or not. The law

the passed to allow him to go to war had a part in it where * had to report back to congress before he actually used the troops. We didn't invade because of the act passed in 2002. * reported back to congress a couple of hours before the actual invasion and said the invasion was based on Sadam's involvement with 9-11. That law was passed in 2001. That's why Bushco is so adamenet that Sadam had ties with al Qaeda. And he reported back in a written letter. Didn't even show up.

And that law is still in effect and anytime * find countries "involved" with al Qaeda, he can legally invade them.

[AntiCoup2K4]

24. This Democrat believes NOTHING George Bush Jr says

If he said 2+2 =4 in a press conference, I'd reach for a calculator.

[Postman]

25. Congress was duped into voting for war in Iraq because the Intel...

was cherry-picked.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/17/1543215

[yurbud]

31. Even if forgivably duped, assumption of THREAT shows incompetence ...

or complicity

[bklyncowgirl]

29. They believed it because to question it meant (to them) political suicide

The Congressional Democrats were not a profile in courage. Most of them could see the attack ads the Republicans would run against them and even if they had doubts, in the immortal words of John Kerry, who knew they'd fuck it up so much.

I always thought he had a few vials of stale anthrax or something stashed away in a basement somehwere but nothing that would threaten anyone but dissidents in his own country.

Terrorists who do not have a country to call their own might consider exploding a nuke in the US--especially if they could manage to blame it on someone they don't like--rulers of actual countries would not do this for the simple fact that their country would be turned in minutes into a radioactive wastlend.

[yurbud]

33. rogue nukes would be far more likely to come Russia or Pakistan

and the ones from the latter would have been sold with the Bushies blessing.

[The_Casual_Observer]

36. It was a ploy dreamed up over a number of years by the neocons

And 9/11 provided the perfect atmosphere to set in in motion. They made "double negative" arguments about those weapons, and if you didn't go along with them you were branded as an irresponsible terrorist lover.

[Ladyhawk]

37. I was still technically a Republican at the time and even I knew.

I have trouble believing that those who voted for the IWR didn't know.

[lonestarnot]

40. Don't know and don't claim to, but they should have considered the source

of the information. Embarrassing and deadly wrong for thousands of innocent people. They knew the goal was oil would be my guess. Oil and strategic global positioning in the mid east.

[Itsthetruth]

41. No

The Senators did not believe Bush's propaganda line on Iraq. They knew it was b.s. from day one. And if the Democrats were so easily mislead by George Bush of all people, why am I not a United States Senator along with 49 other DU'ers? We're certainly a whole lot smarter than easily fooled Senators.

[lonestarnot]

42. Were you responding to MY post? Maybe I should reread my post...

[Itsthetruth]

43. Good Idea

They didn't buy Bush's war propaganda lies including the WMD b.s.

23 Senators who knew Bush was lying voted against the invasion resolution. The other 77 Senators who knew Bush was lying voted for the invasion resolution.

[lonestarnot]

44. Isn't that about what I said... they knew it was a fucking lie so they

voted to go ahead for oil and strategic positioning? WTF?

[GreenArrow]

48. that what was you said

.

[lonestarnot]

49. Thank you.

[gulliver]

46. They trusted him, and it was the right thing to do.

It doesn't matter whether they believed him or not. By all accounts, there was no official information proving Bush to be a liar. As president, he had to be given the benefit of the doubt. We would want no less for a Democratic president.

The problem is that we need an honorable president, and we didn't and don't have one. What really bothers me the most is that a majority of people still voted him back in. One is used to thinking automatically that because honor is good, a majority of people will naturally value it. So much for that theory.

[Itsthetruth]

50. Huh?

As Lewis Black might say ....... BULL SHIT!

There was absolutely nothing in Bush's career, not to mention his election theft in 2000, that would justify any Democratic politician giving Bush the benefit of the doubt. Bush had a well deserved reputation for being a notorious liar and scoundrel well before the invasion.

[eridani]

52. They were afraid that the conquest of Iraq would prove successful

The reason for that is that they mostly buy into neoliberalism so much that they've abandoned the Keynsian worldview that gave us the policies that got Germany and Japan back on their feet, and weren't able to see that stripminining Iraq would provoke resistance they couldn't control with a small invasion force. Of course the minority that didn't so buy in aren't neoliberals, either.

Old-fashioned liberal imperialists might have actually accomplished the PNAC goal in a few simple steps--

1. Wrap up the invasion in a few weeks with a much larger force which could have protected the universities, ammo dumps, hospitals, etc.
2. Pour large amounts of money into the infrastructure quickly, funnelling it entirely through the Iraqi business class, with some controls to see that the bennies get spread out more to the general population. Hold local elections immediately, as Garner wanted to do.
3. Don't mess with the existing government and army--just start paying them to work with us.
4. Thusly ceding a good bit of control to Iraqis, it would then be a simple matter to say "How about we keep a few bases here, seeing as how we got rid of Saddam and all?" No guarantees, but a very likely answer might have been "Sure, just keep them away from population centers and out of everyone's faces, 'mkay? And keep giving us a major chunk of change from the oil."

But of course the neocons aren't going to go for public investment in infrasructure or Keynsian reflation of the economy with low unemployment, and too many Dems buy into that.

[porkrind]

53. Of course they knew it was a crock of shit.

Let's not be too naive about this. You don't get to be a senator or congressperson without practical political cunning. It's not all art and beauty with them, these people are crafty, craven, savvy career politicians who will say what ever they need to say to stay in the game. They knew which way the wind was blowing and who was in charge, and they knew that to defy them would be thankless political suicide. With few exceptions, they just upheld the status quo and "played ball". We should punish them at the polls, but I guess we would first need honest elections to do that.

We should always remember that the type of person who craves power enough to get elected over-and-over to higher-and-higher offices is the wrong kind of personality to have running things. They are pathologically narcissistic. We should assume all politicians are dirty and vote them out as soon as their term is up. The longer they stay in, the dirtier they become.

Of course there are exceptions to the above (Kucinich, Conyers, Boxer, etc).