I feel that if you supported the Iraq war, that you should be ridiculed for it the rest of your life

[trumad]

I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican.

WHY?

1) You have no concept of Middle East history

2) You put your faith in George W. Bush and Dick Cheney

[sweetheart]

1. ditto for afganistan

...same reasons why

[TahitiNut]

7. Agreed.

I've been adamantly opposed to the invasions of both countries from "day one."

[Solly Mack]

32. Yeppers

I got a lot of scorn and contempt for any and all that enabled Bush for any reason.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

70. Bingo.

Plenty of people still can't admit they were wrong about that fuck up.

[Freddie Stubbs]

75. Does that include Kennedy, Boxer, Feingold, Kucinich, McKinney, Sanders, Rangel and Murtha?

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00281

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll342.xml

[jarab]

103. No. There was some justification for the venture into Afghanistan.

None whatsoever in Iraq.

...O...

[mike_c]

2. agreed....

Or 3) you were a cynical, murderous SOB who used political games with the lives-- and deaths-- of innocents to advance your political career.

[whistle]

3. The Iraq War is immoral and illegal and should be ended now

....along with criminal prosecutions of the perpetrators of this war, beginning with Bush and Cheney

[Bjornsdotter]

4. Works for me n/t

[Liberal Veteran]

5. WTF is going on today?

All this internecine warfare is ridiculous.

[bigtree]

6. politicians or the public?

How do we get to the point that Bush's lies about Iraq were pernicious if we assume all Americans should have been wise to them?

At what level of government should politicians have been aware that the president of the United States was deceiving them into war?

[mike_c]

8. the truth about Iraq was available in 2002....

I knew it. We have to assume that people in Congress knew at least as much. Most were not deceived, IMO. Instead, most who voted for the war were either expressing blind support for the president or were counting on cynical political calculus to give them cover.

Read the preamble to the IWR. It expresses congress' complete agreement with all of the administration's lies about Iraq. That preamble is the key to dispelling the myth that congress persons were duped by the president. When congress voted for the IWR they not only gave permission to invade Iraq under the War Powers Resolution of 1973, but they affirmed their acceptance of "truths" that were generally known to be lies even then, such as the link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11.

[bigtree]

12. When courts debate enforcement of legislation they talk about the 'intent' of Congress

There is the letter of the law, as expressed in the legislation and in the resolutions, then there is the meaning of the law as interpreted and translated into practice.

First, Bush ignored the letter of the IWR which directed him to "exhaust all peaceful means" and "return to the Security Council," so, I don't know why folks insist the IWR gave him justification to unilaterally and preemptively invade and occupy Iraq. He violated that resolution.

Secondly, if you accept the language of the resolution as gospel, then you should also give credence to the words of Edwards and others, before and after their vote, which cautioned against what Bush ultimately did, and then condemned his actions.

[mike_c]

16. I'm sorry, but the IWR contained no such requirements....

Here is a link to a lengthy discussion of the IWR and the complete text of what it contains: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=post&forum=364&topic_id=2934403&mesg_id=2934677 .

Section 2 is the only part of the act-- after the preamble, which is only context-- that addresses the U.N. or diplomacy at all, and it contains no requirements for future action, only appreciation for past diplomacy.

[bigtree]

20. It doesn't make sense to insist that the IWR gave Bush all of the authority

when he disregarded the provisions which mandated restraint. Bush never used the IWR as justification. He can't. He disregarded it and pushed forward with the deployment of troops under the loophole in the War Powers Act which enabled him to commit forces without prior congressional approval. That's what he cited in his message to Congress as he committed them, not the IWR. The War Powers Act is even referenced in the resolution as their only hinge in the open door that Congress has until they modify the WPA to restrain presidents from their initial deployment of troops.

In fact, Congress' only effective lever is the power of the purse. The appropriations are the fuel that fires the militarism. Cut them off and you cut off the military action.

Again, the provisions are in the resolution. The intent of those who voted for the resolution were made clear in their floor speeches before and after the vote. That's where I judge the intent of our minority senators. That's really the only place to judge their intent. The majority resolution did contain language which intended to restrain Bush and direct him back to the Security Council. He ignored all of that because he could. He had the means to deploy the troops with or without Congress, and the administration said just that before the IWR vote.

[mike_c]

23. he cited the WPR because Sec. 3 of the IWR gave specific authority...

...under the WPR and actually stated precisely what he had to report to congress within 48 hrs of invading Iraq.

Floor speeches are nothing more or less than political posturing, a means for getting your words recorded in the Congressional Record. The intent of congress is expressed in the bill it passed:

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;

[bigtree]

24. that's just stating the existing law under the WPA

nothing new was broached in that resolution giving Bush any powers which he didn't already assume.

Are all of Edwards words 'posturing', or just the ones which don't support your bias?

[pennylane100]

13. I, along with many other DU'ers knew in 2002

that Bush was lying and also that he had planned to invade Iraq without any knowledge of WMD.

I remember reading extensively how Iraq was co-operating with the inspections and that we
actually kicked them out before the job was done. I remember reading many things that led me to believe he was lying (unfortunately my bad memory, stops me from quoting specific facts) However, I was sure that we would not find them and that Bush was the type of person who should never get the benefit of the doubt. I knew then he was a lying sociopath. I cannot understand how our politicians could not know.

[Bluebear]

14. Agree with your every word. nt

[LynnTheDem]

41. At my level.

I knew he was lying.

And I'm a nobody.

If I knew, then every govt official should have known at least as much as I did.

Especially those who held the power of life & death.

Those who say they didn't know then what they know now? They're lying. Or they're deeply stupid and/or ignorant.

Either way, unfit for office.

[Canuckistanian]

9. The evidence never supported war. Many of us knew that.

We knew all about the bullshit stories - the aluminum tubes, the "mobile bioweapons lab", the "meeting" between Mohammed Atta and Saddam's general. Every one disproven, almost immediately. But they lived on, with help from Bush/Cheney/Fox News/CNN/MSNBC.

They were determined to have their war. To hell with inconsequential things like "facts".

[Individualist]

21. Those who voted for it are guilty of complicity or ignorance,

neither of which is excusable.

[Posteritatis]

36. Ignorance is excusable *until it's wilfully maintained*

That's the point where I start losing respect for people - that's the point where not only should they know better, they know they should know better and don't anyway.

Past that, ignorance is our default state. In and of itself, it's not shameful; we all have to start somewhere, after all, and I'm sure every person on this site can think of several things political, historical, technical, etc., that they're completely bereft of clue about. I respect that if they're aware of it and, if not actively trying to fix it, then at least acknowledging that there's a hole in their knowledge which ought not to be there. If they don't know and don't care that they don't know? That's something else.

I'll give a hand or the benefit of the doubt to anyone who really, genuinely sincerely realizes they didn't know about something, or thought they did and were mistaken, and then wilfully seeks to address and repair that problem.

(I know you're presumably talking about the congresscritters as opposed to people in general; allow me my soapbox. "I don't know" ignorance versus "I won't know" ignorance is one of my pet topics at times.)

[LynnTheDem]

43. Ignorance is not excusable when you hold the power of life or death.

Those officials who claim ignorance damn themselves even worse; they had the duty to inform themselves BEFORE they sent men & women to their deaths.

Inexcusable.

[treestar]

10. Yes.

[NoPasaran]

11. Why stop there?

Also, your children, and their children, and on unto at least the seventh generation.

Also, you should only be allowed dialup access to the internet.

Basic cable only! No HBO for you!

:sarcasm:

[knowledgeispwr]

15. Wonderful

Great way to endear people to your ideas. :eyes:

[Tansy_Gold]

17. Also very encouraging to those who see the error of

their ways and wish to convert.

:sarcasm:


Sheesh.

[trumad]

25. there should never have been an error...

or do you think there should have been?

[Tansy_Gold]

27. I said "The error of their ways," meaning

some people don't or didn't have the same access to information that some of the rest of us have. Some are young and still under the influence of their RW elders. Some have never taken the time to think about what they "believe."

I think any person can believe wrongly, even foolishly, and still be granted at the very least "probationary" forgiveness. To do otherwise is to tell people "Don't bother coming over to the side of the light. If you've been in darkness once, you're there forever, damned for all eternity."

I'm not that much of a hard-liner. But then, I was raised a Republican. I watched my parents and my in-laws, in their 70s, change from being staunch lifelong GOP to voting Dem and condemning booooosh vociferously -- and then going on to examine why they'd been GOP and why they no longer wanted to be. My mother-in-law was a GOP elected county official, my f-i-l precinct chair for 40 years; they'll probably never change their party registration -- they're in their 80s now -- but it's unlikely they'll ever vote puke again on anything above the county level. (In their county, most offices don't even have Dem candidates!)

Some people, maybe a lot of people, don't bother to question their beliefs until something forces them to. Maybe it's the dangerous pregnancy that makes them rethink their stand on abortion, or a heinous hate-crime that makes them re-think equality, or a gay grandchild who makes them examine their feelings about same-sex marriage. If we don't give them the chance to re-think their beliefs, we're effectively locking them out of the tent.

I won't lock anyone out.

It's not that there's an error in the "facts," but there can indeed be an "error" in the way people process information. Sometimes they are afraid of the truth and stay in denial, or they believe in something because they want to believe in it. I have an acquaintance who has said directly to my face that he does not want to hear about the failure to find WMDs in Iraq, because he simply can't bear to think that his government "made a mistake." He absolutely refuses to even consider that "the President" lied. (Never mind that he believes Clinton lied forty times a day and fifty on Sunday.) But if his son goes into the army and is sent to Iraq, this acquaintance may have to face the "error of his ways" of thinking. And if he comes to his senses and says, "Oh my fucking god, this is a complete clusterfuck and my boy is in the middle of it and it's been wrong from the start and what can I do to stop this madness!" do you think I'm going to wash my hands of him and say, "Sorry, pal, your kid could get blown to smithereens by an IED and that's just too fucking bad. You shoulda been against the war from the beginning."

Better late than never, like this post.


Tansy Gold

[knowledgeispwr]

31. Good post. n/t.

[Infinite Hope]

33. AMEN!

I wrote a piece once addressing the issue of people needing an issue to effect them before they see teh reality of it. It was inspired by two people who were staunchly against abortion until they needed it. Their parents were against as well and then saw how necessary it was when health issues came into play.

[Tansy_Gold]

38. Sometimes it's blatant hypocrisy, but sometimes it's

a "click" and the whole perspective changes.

Years ago a woman I worked with, a woman in her early 50s, found out she was very unexpectedly pregnant. She had always been adamantly anti-abortion and even though this baby would have caused a huge change in her and her husband's lifestyle, she didn't even consider terminating ---- until she found out the fetus had multiple birth defects, would probably not survive long after birth or would require constant and expensive medical attention, and could die in utero and effectively poison the mother. At that point, somewhere in the second trimester, they opted to terminate. But she never had a "click" moment when she understood the importance of having the right to terminate an unwanted or unhealthy pregnancy. In her eyes, she "had no choice," so no "choice" was needed. Yet she unashamedly took advantage of Roe v. Wade for her own personal convenience, and continued to be "anti-abortion".

That's hypocrisy.

But other people may find themselves in a similar situation, and the light bulb goes on and they see the "error of their ways." So it's not necessarily just the fact that when the shit hits their personal fan, they get enlightened, but rather that for some people, that's what it takes.

Interestingly enough, the acquaintance I mentioned in my earlier post told a mutual friend just the other day that, even though he supports the war and thinks booooosh was absolutely right to go to Iraq and get the WMD that will eventually be found right alongside the diary that proves Saddam and Osama are BFF, if there's a draft reinstituted and his son is called up, he'll send him to Canada! I'm sure he doesn't even know how to spell hypocrisy.


Tansy Gold

[trumad]

48. Of course he'll send him to Canada...

because he's a chickenhawk. It amazes me that the chickenhawks consider this the war of wars, but won't go.

[Tansy_Gold]

76. Well, to make things even more ironic,

the guy in question is a veteran. Served four years in the army in the 1980s, never called to combat but did enlist during a time of no draft. So he's not entirely a chickenhawk. (He's not a friend, just an acquaintance, and far too RW for me to even contemplate making him any more than that.)

The point I'm trying to make is that it's very, very easy to exclude someone from a particular group on the basis of one criterion and never let them live it down. Once a puke, always a puke. Once a boooosh supporter, always a boosh supporter. Once a smoker/drinker/user of crystal meth, always. . . . Which of course makes Robert Byrd still a KKK member and violent racist and Dennis Kucinich a pro-lifer.

I remember talking to my mom a few weeks before the 2006 elections and she mentioned how odd it felt to know ahead of time that she was going to vote for almost all Dems. She said she had always believed the GOP was the party that protected individual property rights and low taxes and so on, and those had always been the major issues for her and my dad. They're white, working class folks, so they didn't pay a lot of attention to civil rights issues other than to feel it was proper for all people to have equal rights. They really couldn't tell you if the GOP or the Dems were more supportive; the issues that mattered to them were property rights (because they had worked hard for what they have) and taxes (ditto). And they believed, without stopping to question, that the GOP was more on the side of the working person than the Dems, who were pro-union (and my parents never belonged to a union and believed, because they'd always been told so, that unions protected "the lazy" rather than "the workers") and pro-welfare and pro-taxes.

Well, they woke up. I'm not sure exactly what turned the light bulb on, but something did.

Now, when it comes to people like senators and congresspeople, is it the same kind of situation? I don't know. Yes, surely they had access to far more information and surely they are aware of the ideology -- and naked greed -- that's driving so much of this administration's policy. And maybe some of them are hypocrites who are just jumping on the anti-war bandwagon to save their political skins in '08. But in the interest of stopping this horrible, horrible war, of bringing some sanity back to Washington, of bringing the troops and the contractors and the mercenaries and the journalists home (and putting the aid workers back in Iraq) -- I'll take all the supportive voices we can get.

Sure, some of them are opportunistic flip-floppers, but maybe some of them sincerely mean their conversion. Who are we to judge now, before that conversion has been tested by time? Not I!


Tansy Gold

[undeterred]

18. Why stop at ridicule? Torture is legal now.

[QuestionAll...]

19. yes yes and yes.

picking the democrat to run in '08 should be damn easy then.

should be... but I already hear the whining excuses to protect the warmongering assholes.

lousy two faced bastards, all of them who sold their souls for these filthy wars (I too think the afghanistan invasion was/is criminal )

[Pithy Cherub]

22. Atonement is not running for president.

Forgiveness comes in seeing over the course of the remainder of their lives that their actions show true atonement, contrition and every effort to make amends. Running for president compounds the issue of not accepting their responsibility for making the mess - find someway to atone, just not as the President. To me that is the antithesis of demonstrating a truly felt remorse for such an error that has ended with so many needless deaths and casualties.

[Jacobin]

26. The Iraqis probably feel even more strongly about that

than we do.

[trumad]

28. I never said not forgiven...

I said ridiculed for being so stupid in the first place.

[spoony]

83. And how is that forgiveness again?

Generally when you forgive someone you don't harp on the matter.

[knowledgeispwr]

88. It's not.

It's not forgiveness at all.

[cadmium]

29. I disagree: This would be cruel and counterproductive--alienating

allies. Some of the most intense opponents of the war are those that feel as though they were lied to by the Bush administration

[lonestarnot]

30. I don't know, a lifetime is a very long time and a very short time at the same time.

Sooooo, what I'm saying is ridiculed for a lifetime is a whole bunch of ridiculing if you know what I mean Vern.

[NNN0LHI]

34. We are talking about genocide here folks

Nazis are still being hunted down to this day for what they did.

People who are not on the right side of this had better rethink their position.

Don

[Posteritatis]

35. Right, because people can never learn or change or reevaluate. (n/t)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

42. because one should feel ashamed if they agree to the killing of peopel

without any knowledge of why...

war is not a theory..war causes death.

you shouldnt agree support killing without knowing why.

[trumad]

49. Of course they can---

but that's not going to stop me from ridiculing them for their original blind stupidity.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

51. also we should feel some guilt and remorse over stupid decisions

i certainly do, when i make stupid decisions or choices...

and my choices have never been in supporting slaughter

[sweetheart]

58. why shouldn't they, just humbly.

Theres a time when 'you were wrong' should sting a bit, or learning is not happening.

[Raine]

37. Put em in stocks

so we can throw rotten tomatoes and garbage at them. :woohoo:

[JNelson6563]

39. Oh it's on now!

:popcorn:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

40. seconded.

i cannot understand people who support killing of other people without bothering to read some fucking history...

i mean is it too much to ask to know something about a country before you stand behind your nominated president and support their slaughter?

[trumad]

45. Yeah---our own President didn't know the diff between Sunnis and Shias.

and I'm sure most who voted for the war res didn't as well.

If they did they might have thunk about those old can of worms.

[knowledgeispwr]

89. What were they suppose to do?

Yes, some people could have been better informed, but a lot have busy lives; they have to depend on the media to tell them the truth and hope their elected officials are doing what's in the country's best interest for big issues like war.

I'm skeptical and cynical and think everyone should question things as much as they can and not accept things for face value. And some people did, by keeping up with the (mainstream) media. So now they realize they were wrong so we should ridicule them?

[Junkdrawer]

44. On the eve of the vote, I said "This one goes on your tombstone"...

It was kinda obvious.

[koopie57]

46. Humm Trumad

I notice you have been conspicuously quiet after your post.

[trumad]

47. Nah... Just taking it all in.

You can accuse me of a lot of things on this forum and most are probably true...But I aint no hit and runner. LOL

[koopie57]

50. Are you the attorney person?

[trumad]

55. No...

I'm the guy who needs them..;-)

[koopie57]

95. *LOL*

I can't help but wonder why.

[seabeyond]

52. i feel that is a totally non productive exercise and a waste of time.

not to mention destructive attitude that will do umpteenth times more harm than good. and that never makes sense to me.

[knowledgeispwr]

60. Agree completely.

The original post here and many of the replies smack of elitism. That elitism and condescending attitude, as you said, will do us no good at all.

People have a hard enough time realizing and admitting they were wrong. Ridiculing them for "the rest of their lives" definitely is not going to encourage them to see the light.

If you really care that people know, realize, and accept the truth, you won't belittle them for getting to it "for the rest of their lives."

[seabeyond]

65. another important aspect. i was dependent on msm to the lead up

i did not get the information to suggest so many things that i understand now. though i did get more than most, i didnt have du at the time. i would pick up pieces from other places. i learned a lot that was otherwise unknown to me when i found this site. this is what a lot of people were depending on.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

72. how old were you at the time of the war again?

[seabeyond]

73. 42 maybe. why?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

74. actually i wasnt trying to be snarky ..i got you mixed up with someone else

i still hold to my belief..the info was out there..not just on du..but in history books..in media (jon stewart)...in editorials etc

i think too many people dont think of war as a "real" thing wiht real consequences..

its why they dont think maybe 2 hours of research is worth it, before sentencing other people to death.

[seabeyond]

80. you an hold that belief. but it doesnt make it valid. i understand

what you are saying but.... i was on the net, so i got a little of the stuff. was also home all day watching news 24/7 so i got the few pieces that fell thru the crack. i also am a pacifist, dem, dont trust bush, against war, and knew saddam hated bin laden.

i was on a spiritual board where people would send me the information to read

a year after the war, before elections i was telling my father msm puts out the wrong information. he said... are you telling me the news is lying to me? that concept couldnt even get into his head. he isnt stupid, he isnt bad and he thought he was being responsible in being informed. and he is totally computer incapable. doesnt have one. doesnt use one.

and everyone around him validated his beliefs as all their beliefs were validated too.

bush lied. cheney forged the material to take us to war. and powell sold out.

i will let those three hold the responsiblity for this war exclusively.

i still stand with my original post

respectfully, wink. series!!!!111!!!!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

81. well we are all expressing opinion here..

and i do think barring from very young or very old people (old people because they grew up in a different time when maybe the media was trustworthy)...people have a personal responsibility to take the deaths of other people seriously.

[seabeyond]

84. i couldnt agree more. i certainly get pissed, (living in the panhandle of texas)

at their hypocrisy as church going christians ignoring all the deaths over there. i have had my share of knock down, drag out fights here with all types of people. i think all should be made/forced to watch so many of these videos showing the deaths. i am appalled at so many that refuse to look.

but... it is the original post that i had issue with. not being angry at those that refuse to look, but ridiculing forever anyone that wasnt aware at the beginning of this war. i remember a lot of things that were happening at that time. i still dont say it was ok, but i do remember things that were happening

and certainly, ... it is all sharing and expessing opinion.

[Infinite Hope]

82. Exactly - DU Elitism

Elitism is exactly what it is. It's the same with those who try discrediting other members not with substance, but instead tout how long they've been on DU compared to them. As if being on DU for a certain period is required experience for having knowledge and an opinion. If you haven't reached 10,000 posts, then clearly you know nothing of what you're talking about.

Then they turn the page and talk about how experience is irrelevant because the Bush administration was one of the most experienced ever, yet look at all the harm they did. Experience doesn't matter, especially when their candidate has little.

:eyes:Remember, hypocrisy and elitism is unique to this administration.:sarcasm:

Only in the horridly criminal extent of it.

Edit: typo

[La Lioness Priyanka]

85. the elitism lies in sending other people off to die.

not in mocking those who do send other people off to die.

[knowledgeispwr]

86. Elitism

Elitism lies in not accepting those who realize the error of their ways. Mocking people who were wrong and initially supported the war in Iraq, many Americans, does no good.

Elitism doesn't have one exclusionary application. Sending others off to die for something you aren't willing to die for is elitist. Mocking the ex-supporters of that war for finally "getting it" is also elitist.

I'm tired of some on DU using Bush-like absolutisms, saying that something is one thing or the other, black or white, up or down.

[Infinite Hope]

90. Um

"not in mocking those who do send other people off to die."

If the original post was merely mocking and not the author's actual sentiment, then perhaps it should have said ":sarcasm:"

If it's their true sentiment, then it's elitist.

Yes, Bush's mentality is also elitist. That's never really been questioned on DU that I know of. It seems that when people either don't have an argument or are too lazy to think about one, they attack Bush. "No, I'm not elitist, Bush is, look at Iraq!" As if Iraq or Bush is directly relevant to their own elitist practice. Bush's elitism, ignorance, and mistakes is becoming a shroud to hide behind.

[DawgHouse]

99. I agree!

[ChickMagic]

53. Everytime I hear someone say "I trust the president"

I just say, "Sucker!"

[ecstatic]

54. I agree because its such a mess over there. Generations destroyed

If the 655,000 figure is correct, then what we are witnessing is tantamount to genocide.

Why should the people who supported this fiasco without doing their homework now be able to say "sorry" and then have the audacity to try to lead us as president?

Out of the current senate members, I admit, I was a Hillary Clinton supporter.

Now I feel that holding all of them accountable is the very least we can do to say to the dead US soldiers and Iraqi civilians: Yes, we care, and we will try to make things right again.

[trumad]

56. When they say they made a mistake

it reminds me of my 13 year old saying, I was just kidding" when I bust him for doing something stupid.

He thinks it will mitigate his screw up by saying he didn't mean it in the first place.

Same with those who voted for this calamity. They voted almost as if they were blindfolded and they did it out of political cowardliness. Now they're saying, whoops, sorry.... Well thats fine but I will always look at those who voted for this as political cowards.

[BreweryYardRat]

57. Dude, the catastrophic fuck-up in Iraq was a prime motivator in making me into a Dem.

And I was 14 when Chimp-boy and the Walking Clogged Artery were beating the war drum.

Besides, there's a little concept of "forgiveness," that we as Democrats are supposed to espouse.*

*: Yes, I'm aware of the irony, given that I'm a proponent of executions for gross corruption.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

69. i can forgive someone even i think they are idiots and should feel ashamed of themselves

[roamer65]

78. I have forgiven those who voted for Raisinbrain in 2000...

and then switched their vote to Kerry in 2004. I will never forgive those who voted for Raisinbrain twice or in 2004. One is in my family and he now is sorry he did it. I'm nice, but I have told him to suck it up, he's got 2 more years to endure.

[BreweryYardRat]

98. For the record, I wasn't supporting him by election-time 2004.

[sandnsea]

59. Anybody who believed Iraq had WMD?

Because I don't know of anybody who didn't believe that, along with believing we needed a resolution to deal with that reality, including Gore, Clark, Dean and others. They didn't help keep us out of war by saying the WMD story was all a pack of lies, they didn't even come out and strongly rebuke Bush for rushing to war.

I don't know if anybody called Iraq right, including DU because they would call Bush a liar if he said the sky was blue.

[trumad]

62. Hi---I'm rumad, nice to meet you...

OK---now you know somebody who didn't believe it.

[sandnsea]

63. And if Bush said the sky was blue

you wouldn't believe that either, consequently you don't count. Nothing personal, but nobody could "know" what was going on in Iraq before inspectors went in. Not even Dennis Kucinich claimed that Iraq was free of WMD.

[trumad]

64. So fucking what? Really----

what's that got to do with agreeing with the war resolution. Personally, I read and listened to folks like Hans Blix and Scott Ritter and I quickly came to the conclusion that WMDs did not exist in Iraq.

But again--- what's this got to do with the Iraq resolution that authorized Bush to go to war with Iraq whenever he felt like it?

[sandnsea]

66. Well they never said that

so I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion there were no WMD in Iraq based on what they said.

Getting it right on Iraq has to do with a whole lot more than a vote.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

87. inspectors did go in..they foudn nothing...we insisted there was something..

we pulled the inspectors our..didnt give them enough time..there was no evidence to go in and kill people...

there was no iraqi in the 9/11 attacks

saddam isnt religious

if bush said the sky was blue i would believe him. i can believe things that are independently verifiable.

[sandnsea]

91. The vote was before the inspections

Honestly, if you don't know that, you've got no business expressing an opinion on the war at all. I say that because I've seen that statement at least 100 times on DU and am beyond annoyed at the hypocrisy of people who criticize those responsible for the country's security when they know absolutely NOTHING themselves.

The sky is gray where I'm at today, so I guess you're wrong about that blue thing too.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

92. i do know that. i was talking about supporting the war, not necessarily the vote.

people supported the war long after all this was released...

[sandnsea]

93. Good, then the vote isn't the issue

The people who opposed going to war in March of 2003 are the issue. They aren't the same people. And some who opposed going to war, have been in favor of staying long after it was clear we needed to get out. The issue isn't as simple as that vote, which is how most people try to portray it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

96. ok, maybe we are all talking about different things...i was referring to the point

when we decided to go into iraq..the few months preceding it

at the time the vote was given...things were still hazy

at the time we went into war..it was clear saddam had nothing..and bush and co REALLY REALLY wanted a war..

[bidiboom]

97. I don't think that is the case

I don't have any links on hand but I'm pretty sure that the inspections were ongoing since early 2002 until few weeks before the invasion when the inspectors were kicked out.
There was a lot of information contradicting administration's bullshit, even on MSM if you listened carefully.

[sandnsea]

100. Well you're wrong n/t

[bidiboom]

102. Now that you mention it I agree

http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2002/ma_iraq_1112.shtml

Bush's* war resolution was in September.

[leftofthedial]

61. It's pretty damning

one had to be either stupid, gullible or culpable or a combination of all three

[La Lioness Priyanka]

68. or lazy...and an inexcusable form of laziness too

[comsymp]

67. That's fine, but taking a page from some of the current discussions here,

I think that those who supported it should also have to pay for it.

[ronnie624]

71. I view the invasion, destruction, and plundering of Iraq

so vile, so heinous, so evil in its motive and nature, that anyone who prosecuted and or facilitated it, is politically worthless in my eyes.

I was keenly aware of the lies by the Bush administration, in their campaign to manufacture support for aggressive war, therefore no congressperson has any viable excuse for not speaking forcefully and consistently against the invasion. I did so, loudly and often, right smack in the middle of Redneckville (Few had the courage, and none the facts to dispute my tirades).

I cannot countenance the destruction and rapine of other countries, for any reason. For some things, there is no compromise.

[devilgrrl]

77. 3) You have no interests in anything that doesn't effect you

eom

[WI_DEM]

79. That would include Kerry, Clinton, Edwards and others who may run in '08

even though they are now singing another tune.

[BluePatriot]

94. A-freaking-men.....(nt)

[ecstatic]

101. Can someone photoshop 3 Scarlet letters (IWR) on some pics?

:rofl:

Just kidding.

[Crunchy Frog]

104. The rest of your life might be a little harsh.

Maybe just for the next 20 years.