Why the "'I Was Misled" to Vote for Bush's War Excuse Insults Dems Who Knew Better.

[David Zephyr]

"I was misled to vote for George Bush's illegal and disastrous war in Iraq."

"The Devil made me do it".

Just how lame is that for an excuse? Am I the only person who is truly getting sick and tired of hearing that as some sort of justification for having not done your job as a member of Congress on the greatest issue that they will ever face: waging war?

This "Bush misled me" excuse also is the greatest insult possible to all the 156 brave Democrats in the House and the Senate who stood up to the then-popular President and his wish list for making war against Saddam Hussein. These courageous Democrats also saw the "evidence" and also faced public opinion polls that then favored invading Iraq. BUT they apparently were not fooled. They were not misled. Were they?

What do the "I was misled" crowd have to say to the 156 Democrats who voted against the IWR?

I give great credit to John Edwards who humbly says he got it wrong. Edwards says that while he was also fed the misinformation by the White House that he should have gotten it right. He owned up to his mistake and, damn it, that is refreshing these days. John Kery, too! I admire that. A lot.

However, David Geffen has it right about Hillary Clinton on her continued lame excuses about her voting for the IWR and publicly championing it afterward. It is infuriating to all of us who knew better, who knew that every shred of the so-called "evidence" of WMD's in Iraq that was provided by Bush, Cheney and even Colin Powell had already been discredited.

In order to rehabilitate herself for her vile vote for the IWR, it appears that Hillary Clinton and her campaign must drag down and insult all the great Democrats who did not succumb to her great folly on October 11, 2002.

How is it that 156 Democrats in the House and Senate were not "misled"? What do you say to them?

Continuing to say that you were "misled" by Bush insults all who knew better and bravely voted against public opinion at that time and at the peril of being called unpatriotic. Stop insulting those Democrats who have let you slide up until now.

Jeez, Louise!

[PLF]

1. I totally agree.

[redqueen]

2. Yep... it's insulting. There's just no other way to see it.

Unless you live in republic (head-up-your-rear) land... they love passing the buck and letting someone else be responsible.

[skypilot]

3. I get sick of hearing it too.

I was apprehensive right from the start when the Bush administration started making WMD claims, if for no other reason than the fact that they lie about every-fucking-thing. But when Saddam finally relented and said that we could let inspectors in and the Bush adminstration reacted by claiming that Saddam was "stalling" and playing "tricks" I knew it was all bullshit right then and there.

[Tom Joad]

4. The best thing for such people to say is just say that soon after the vote they entered rehab.

and they are doing much better now.

That's how celebrities handle their strange and unexplanable behavior.

[Phredicles]

5. Even if it's not seen as an insult, who wants a misleadable president? (or

senator or congressperson?) I mean, I saw through it and I certainly don't consider myself any sort of expert on any relevant subject. So why the fuck couldn't they?

[unpossibles]

6. agreed.

It's as frustrating as people who voted for * twice and now say they can't stand what he's doing, but "didn't kow better" or what have you. It's nice to see them come around, but... come on. The information was out there for years....

[sandnsea]

7. Those 156 did NOT say they "knew"

They voted no for a variety of reasons. Some, like Byrd, because they didn't believe it was Constitutional. Others, like Graham, because of concerns about the greater 'war on terror'. Others because they were against the concept of pre-emptive strikes when a threat wasn't imminent, not because they didn't believe Saddam had WMD. Those who voted yes, also voted for a variety of reasons. Some voted 100% for war, like Lieberman. Others for a very narrow possibility of war, but more for the voice to the UN to get inspectors in, like Kerry. For anybody at DU to point to those no votes as justification that DUers 'knew' is flat out delusional. Bush LIED us into a war. How in the world does anybody expect to impeach him for war lies if nobody in Congress is allowed to say he lied.

The issue with Hillary is her "publicly championing" the actual war for years. It's her tough on defense war hawk strategy so she could run for President. She believes she has to act in certain ways for her own presidntial image, regardless of the wreckage she leaves in her path. That's what actually makes her a terrible candidate and president, that she doesn't believe that her own inner strength and values are enough for people to rally behind.

[David Zephyr]

8. They voted against the IWR. That's enough for me.

Consequently, they apparently have no need to cry that they were "misled" either.

Your second paragraph about Senator Clinton is spot on. She voted for the IWR, not because she was "misled", but because she thought it was the then-correct thing to do politically and she rode the public opinion at that time that favored the war. But her gamble backfired.

Of course, she wasn't "misled" into voting for the IWR. Her vote was purely political and thereby, more shameful.

"That's what actually makes her a terrible candidate and president, that she doesn't believe that her own inner strength and values are enough for people to rally behind." I couldn't have said it better.

[sandnsea]

13. exactly, fake outrage over false data

Trumped up outrage because ideology is more important than reality. You don't care about the facts, none of the anti-IWR people ever have. It's all about feeding egos. That's why this country sucks so bad.

[bvar22]

18. I call BULLSHIT!

"You don't care about the facts, none of the anti-IWR people ever have."

NONSENSE!
We care about FACTS, and also the absence of FACTS!
There was a clear absence of FACTS in the Bush* hype to WAR!

My opposition to the Invasion of Iraq was not about ego. It was about judgement & integrity.
I was one of the many anonymous Americans who marched in the streets.
That choice did not feed my Ego. It fed my soul.

[sandnsea]

30. Nobody in Congress "KNEW"

It is flat bullshit for anybody to validate their position on that vote based on Democrats who "knew". NONE said they KNEW Iraq had no WMD. NONE OF THEM. It's a lie. Anybody who says that is intentionally ignoring the FACTS and the only reason to ignore those FACTS is to feed their own egos. No leader in the entire world KNEW.

[JackRiddler]

32. Bullshit - they all knew or were fools. Either way, no excuse!

See Post 21. Scott Ritter wrote to all of them. All of them knew or should have known (and the latter is no excuse - it indicates an even greater foolishness and irresponsibility).

[sandnsea]

42. The Senate, specifically - show me where ONE said they KNEW n/t

[JackRiddler]

53. I don't care what they said. They knew, or they were dumb, or deliberately obtuse.

I care how they voted. 156 went the right way, the rest have no excuse that they didn't know what anyone could have and should have known.

[sandnsea]

56. So if they SAID Iraq has WMD

that does't matter to you. Is that what you're telling me? You do REALLY give a shit about what anybody actually thought, you only care about good sound bites for your political agenda. Right?

[JackRiddler]

59. They are in Congress. What matters is how they VOTE.

What they thought is important, so no, I shouldn't say I don't care at all.

But the most important thing is how they voted. They can't change that, and if they come up with pathetic excuses, it's only worse.

[sandnsea]

62. What matters is what INFORMS their vote

Cynthia McKinney based her vote on pure craziness. Ranting about the US not protecting the Kurds when the no-fly zones were all about protecting Kurds; then turning around and ranting about the sanctions which were necessary to keep weapons out of the country so that the Kurds could be protected. You don't care that her logic is NUTS, as long as her vote is right?? :crazy:

[Sterling]

88. I guess I am a fucking genius and should be president

I knew. I did not need a Dem to know for me to know. It's really sad to say McKinney and others knew because they are "crazy". I take it you did not "know" Bush was full of shit and was going to go to war no matter what? If that is the case maybe you should question your own worldview rather than insult people who got it right when you were so terribly wrong?

McKinney's logic was that Bush was not to be trusted and we should not give him a blank check. That seems "crazy" to you? Unfortunately many of our pols managed to be just as arrogantly ignorant of the reality in store for us after giving Bush the power to start his war(s). It takes giant balls to be so wrong about something that was so obvious to others and then berate them for being smarter than you. Classic irony.

[MGKrebs]

91. That is perfect.

"Bush was full of shit and was going to go to war no matter what".
What would a politician do under such circumstancs? Many would vote to please their constituents since the actual effect of the vote was unavoidable anyway.
Who would have known that their own party would then inflate the vote to epic proportions and therefore support Lyndon LaRouche.

[sandnsea]

93. Oh no no no

Knowing that Iraq did not have WMD. Period. That's what everybody on DU says they "knew". Cynthia McKinney DID NOT say she knew that at all. I haven't found ANYBODY in Congress who said they KNEW Iraq did not have WMD. Consequently, the people who are hailing all these no voters as friggin' geniuses are just delusional. They did not vote against the IWR because they didn't think Saddam had WMD. That is just a flat out lie. I am sick to damn death of it.

[xkenx]

111. OKAY, CARL LEVIN AND TED KENNEDY,TO NAME TWO

I have heard this directly from Carl Levin's mouth and from quotes/interviews of Levin and Ted Kennedy, that ALL members of Congress had plenty of intelligence information prior to IWR vote to know that the Bushco claims were either bogus or not demonstrated, plus input from Wes Clark and other former military leaders. Levin, Kennedy, and 21 other Senators voted with moral clarity. Most who voted YES did so out of political calculation and/or moral weakness, not from misinformation. THAT is why the IWR vote is so important as a historical lesson about the necessity to elect leaders who will do the right thing for the American people because it is the right thing to do. I cannot trust anyone without the requisite character to properly judge the NEXT critical issue to come along.

[sandnsea]

113. Quotes please

Post the quotes that say "Saddam has no WMD".

[xkenx]

122. Which part of my post #111 did you not understand?

[sandnsea]

123. Quotes please n/t

[SOS]

124. It's irrelevant

Many nations possess WMD.

A partial list includes Bulgaria, Chile, China, Egypt, France, India, Iran, Israel, Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Romania, South Africa, Sudan, Syria, Taiwan, Vietnam, UK, US.
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/wmd_state.htm

The relevant issue is whether Iraq's alleged WMDs were an imminent danger to the US.

Did the Republican and Democratic Senators who voted for the IWR believe that Iraq could nuke London "in 45 minutes"?
If they did, they need a new line of work.

[sandnsea]

125. When people say they "knew"

It sure as hell IS relevant when they're pretending there are US leaders who also said they "knew". It's a lie and lies are always relevant to me.

[SOS]

126. No Senator said they "knew".

Since proving lack of possession is impossible.
The no-voters did a risk analysis and realized that there was no imminent threat to the United States from alleged Iraqi WMD.
Although you ignored my previous point, it's irrelevant whether Iraq had WMD.
WMD was the well-documented "sales pitch" put forth by President Cheney to sell the invasion to the American public.
There was never any serious concern about an Iraqi WMD attack on US soil.

The real question is "Did alleged possession of WMD by Iraq pose an imminent threat to the US?"

23 Senators wisely answered no.
You don't launch an invasion based on Cheney's nattering on Meet the Press.

Seriously, between 2001 and 2003 was there ever a moment where you were fearful of dying in an Iraqi WMD attack on US soil?

I wasn't.

I am however deeply concerned about the recent Michael Scheuer reporting that Al Qaeda is working diligently to acquire a nuclear bomb to be detonated in the US.
The IAEA reports 18 thwarted attempts by Al Qaeda to purchase a nuclear bomb or nuclear material in the former USSR.
As a NYC resident it worries me every day.

Unfortunately the idiots in Washington went to war with the wrong country, thereby taking their eye off the real threat.
Invading Iraq while ignoring Al Qaeda will go down as the greatest strategic blunder in American history.

[sandnsea]

128. That's YOUR question

You're entitled to it. That's not what I'm referring to. DUers say they "knew" Saddam didn't have WMD. I point out that they "knew" something that NO Senator or Congressperson ever said, not even Cynthia McKinney. People they currently hail as having "known", actually said the exact opposite - that Saddam did, in fact, possess WMD. I don't know how anybody can form opinions on individuals and their vision for the country if they don't base it on the reality of what those same individuals said in the past. It's insanity as far as I'm concerned.

[SOS]

129. OK

Those who say that Senators knew for certain that Iraq did not have WMD are misinformed.
The floor statements by Senators like Leahy and Kennedy leave open the possibility that Iraq may have had a WMD program of some sort, perhaps chemical or biological.
But those Senators also felt that there was no imminent threat to the US and that other containment channels should be utilized.

On the claim that Senators knew there was no WMD, we agree. That claim can't be made based on the statements of the Senators themselves.
Just sayin' I agree with those Senators who decided that the risk did not warrant an invasion.

[Lerkfish]

41. hell, *I* knew it was bullshit, and it wasn't my job to make the decision

To act like they were fooled, when they had access to more and better information than me, is admitting incompetence or collusion, or political jockeying.

[leftofthedial]

58. Millions of people knew

voting "yes" on IWR meant one of two things:

1. you supported bush's desire for war

OR

2. your top priority was political expediency



Voting "no"--for whatever reason--took courage and conviction. Voting "yes" took nothing but membership in the ruling elite.

[yurbud]

96. when has a less populous, technologically and economically inferior nation attacked a superpower

at home?

You are buying into the Republican frame of the debate:

If Saddam has nukes or even some nerve gas, he is a threat to us.

He would not be in any case. We controlled the air over Iraq. He couldn't get a plane or missile up without us knowing about it.

If he gave stuff to terrorists that was used on us, one of two things would happen:

1. We would figure out or suspect he did it and respond with overwhelming force.
   
   
2. We would not figure out he did it, making the attack of limited political value.
   
   

[yurbud]

97. To the corporate apologists: What would Saddam have gained by nuking us?

or if he gave a nuke to terrorists to nuke us?

Would any abstract propaganda value outweigh the loss of his life and country?

[oblivious]

103. "No leader in the entire world KNEW." That's a vile pile of propaganda.

The Canadian Prime Minister refused to join the illegal war because he asked for proof and was given none.

PM wants proof before backing attack on Iraq
Last Updated: Friday, September 6, 2002

But Chrétien, who is set to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush in Detroit on Monday, said he wants to see clear evidence that Baghdad now possesses weapons of mass destruction.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2002/09/05/iraq_pm020905.html

The French leadership knew Powell's "proof" was a pack of lies. Every assertion was proved false within days of his speech.

[sandnsea]

112. Chretien would have joined the UN

That article refers to a meeting Chretien had with Bush where no intelligence reports were event present. That's what he's referring to when he says he needed to see evidence, that he was still waiting to see anything at all. At the time of the invasion, Canada said they would support a UN invasion. There is nothing that says Chretien KNEW Iraq had no WMD.

[oblivious]

117. No one knows YOU don't have WMDs either. I can't believe you are trying this argument in DU.

The weapons inspectors, after years of intrusive inspections were unable to find even a trace of WMDs.

[sandnsea]

118. Weapons inspectors weren't in

at the time of the vote. The faulty premise is that anyone in Congress should have known, and should have voted no because others voted no. But those others DID NOT vote no because they "knew" Saddam didn't have WMD. That's a flat out lie. Nobody in the entire world KNEW.

[oblivious]

119. They KNEW there was no proof that Iraq had WMDs. They KNEW that every US lead was a lie.

The UN inspectors followed up on every single US lead and found them to be nothing but rubbish.

If US legislators couldn't even take the time to read up on that, what does it say about them.

[sandnsea]

121. Why didn't they say so?

Where's all the quotes about Iraq not having any WMD. :shrug:

The inspectors are irrelevant to the vote.

[cali]

40. GRRR

That's soo dishonest of you: I've posted this before. Here it is again. Please note that Leahy said: "But the Administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumptions based on speculation."
He was clear that real evidence for WMD was lacking. And Leahy wasn't the only one that knew LYING BULLSHIT when he heard it.



"This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President "you decide." This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long.


We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof. But the Administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumptions based on speculation

Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 3, which requires the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies.

But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy alone "is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . .."

And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? As I have said over and over again, it is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting
Unfortunately, we have learned that the phrase "not likely" can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check."


Patrick Leahy.

October, 2002

[sandnsea]

94. "Iraq has no WMD"

Where did he say that? I don't see it. Oh, that's because... He Didn't.

He voted against the IWR because it gave the President too much authority on matters of war. NOT because he "knew" Bush was lying about WMD. Two completely different things. No world leader or US leader KNEW.

[cali]

106. What PATHETIC BUL:LSHIT

How much clearer could he have been:

"BUT THE ADMINISTRATION IS ASKING CONGRESS TO MAKE A DECISION TO GO TO WAR BASED ON CONFLICTING STATEMENTS, ANGRY ASSERTIONS, AND ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON SPECULATION."

Assumptions based on speculation is clearly doubting the WMD intelligence.

[sandnsea]

114. Doubt is not KNOWING

Give me a quote. "Iraq has no WMD"

[razorman]

9. That excuse especially doesn't work for Hillary.

She made statements at the time claiming to have done her own research and come to the same conclusions about the Sadaam threat, WMD's, etc. to justify her vote. So, which is it, madam? Are you that easily fooled?

[David Zephyr]

20. Which is it indeed? And welcome to the DU, razorman.

:hi:

[Mr. Ected]

37. Kerry Lost In 2004 Because of His Pro-IRW Vote

He created a murky political position which was not easily explained to the electorate.

Do we really want to go through that exercise again in 2008? Do we want to give the MSM and the Repukes and their radio mouthpieces that much fodder to distort, to confuse, and to obfuscate?

Of course not. Let those Dems who voted in favor of the IWR work diligently behind the scenes, to make amends for their hideous political faux pas. And let a candidate represent us who doesn't carry that kind of baggage into the '08 campaign.

[The Count]

85. It was a bad position (Edwards' too), but they did win (and do nothing to reveal this fact)

It's important to establish that * was not elected either time. And some candidates we supported would rather let the false info be peddled that stick their neck out with the truth.

[MGKrebs]

89. I'm sorry, but that is just incorrect.

It is a demonstrable fact that George W, Bush is President. Therefore, whoever ran against him lost. Whatever caused that to be the case is a different argument, but let's at least get our facts straight.

[MGKrebs]

43. That is just so lame.

Saddam was a madman. He fought with Iran. he used chemical weapons. He attacked Kuwait. He killed and tortured thousands of people... and you want to sit here now and claim he was no threat? I agree wholeheartedly that he was not an IMMINENT threat, but you want to sit here now and say he was not a threat? Let's not rewrite history here.

[Lerkfish]

45. I didn't understand their post to say what you seem to think it does

I think the post you replied to was making the point that Clinton claimed to have done her own research on WMDs.
Since Leahy was on the record as saying there was nothing definitive, and it was clear to anyone else there was no concrete evidence, and the fact that as Bill's wife, she should already have known Ritter had dismantled the WMD program under her husband, then it becomes clear she was lying about having evidence justifying her vote.

since she claimed to have convincerd herself, back then, for her to claim now that she was misled, is also a lie, unless she misled herself.

(assuming what everyone here has posted is accurate)

[MGKrebs]

69. I don't really want to defend the IWR.

I don't like it, I didn't like it.
What I want to resist is the sentiment to perpetually punish politicians for casting a vote that realistically would have made no difference either way. If a vote comes up that has zero practical effect, and you can gain some political cover, why wouldn't you take it? We lost the majority in the Senate after that. Three of those who voted against lost their seats. Was it because of those votes? Hard to tell, but a lot of damage has been done since we've been in the minority, and the war would have happened anyway. Who is responsible for that?

[Lerkfish]

74. I think you're completely missing the important point of the vote

I keep typing it but I'm not sure its getting across.
What was wrong with the vote was NOT whether it prevented the war. What was wrong with the vote was that congress gave up its constitutional and SOLE duty to declare war. Once it did that, it gave too much power to the executive branch.
The potential for abuse that handed to the chimp is the problem in and of itself, not what he did with it.


:shrug: not sure how to make that clearer. the problem was it was an erosion of the checks and balances built into the constitution.
IMHO it was an unconstitutional vote.

[MGKrebs]

78. You must be young.

We haven't declared war since 1945. Since then we have fought in Korea, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq (1991). The President apparently has had the authority to commit us to fight for some time now without Congressional approval. This cannot be any single Senator's fault.

[Lerkfish]

105. I wish. I'm 48. next strawman, please

Regardless of your age, not sure if you understand how the checks and balances is supposed to work.
I guess we'll have to vehemently disagree and leave it at that.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

71. He was NOT

a threat to the US. He was a product of the US. He was a monster yes, but a monster of this country's making. Just as Bin Laden is.

[MGKrebs]

73. Just because we made him doesn't make him loyal to us.

Yes, we made bin Laden too, but bin Laden is most definitely an enemy of the US.

[GodHelpUsAll2]

86. I never said

nor implied that either of them were loyal to the US. I merely pointed out that we produced them. And as for the gassing that is such the outrage. Can you tell me why it took 15 years for people to start being "outraged" about the "Killing of 5,000 Kurds with chemicals"? FIFTEEN YEARS That happened in 1988. And it's still up for debate who actually used chemicals Iraq or Iran. Back to the point, we have all know about this for 19 years now. 15 when it became "necessary" for the US to invade Iraq because for pete's sake he is gassing his own people. I don't get it? Where was the outrage and the call to invasion 15 years ago when this actually took place? Yes I am very aware he did other things but this seems to be the big one when people are trying to justify the invasion.

[MGKrebs]

90. Can you admit that he might have been a threat?

Regardless of who produced him, his status in 2003 is the issue.

[oblivious]

104. Saddam was not a threat to anyone after the Gulf War.

[Cha]

66. No wonder she doesn't want

to admit her mistake if that's true. She had some bogus material or she was lying out her ass.

[Dhalgren]

10. Completely agree with you!

They were either stupid or politically calculating or both - they can be no other options. The 156 Democrats who voted against the IWR? Smart and honest...

[OwnedByFerrets]

11. One more in agreement with you...........its hard to believe

that I am so much smarter than they were.....or at least not so gullible.

[yurbud]

12. use common sense. Even if Saddam had a handful of nukes, what would happen if he used them?

or gave them to terrorists who did?

Everyone in Congress is old enough to remember the Cold War, and some basic math: We have 10,000 nukes. Even if a country had a couple of dozen, and by some miracle got them all to hit us, we could wipe them off the map a couple of dozen times.

Also, before the war, under pressure from Sen. Bob Graham, George Tenet admitted the obvious: Even if Saddam had nukes, he would not use them unless we were invading, and would be even less likely to give them to terrorists since they would be out of his control once they left his hands. The reason is the one listed above.

Now I'll wait for the right wing crap about how all of Islam is a suicide cult that would like nothing better than to hit us so we have an excuse to exterminate them.

[David Zephyr]

23. Your point just underlines how insulting the "I was misled" argument is.

Thanks for your observation and comments.

The fact that so many of us have graciously let the "I was misled" crowd off the hook has, in fact, been an act of enabling which only encouraged them to continue with it.

[yurbud]

51. essentially, there exchanging nasty lies for nicer sounding ones. Both let the culprits off hook.

[MGKrebs]

72. Sorry, I can't give you right wing crap. but, your logical fallacy is

assuming that since GEORGE BUSH lied about the threat that there must have been no threat at all.

In the real world, there are shades of gray, not always black and white.
Saddam WAS a potental threat,
the resolution was going to pass in the Senate anyway.

We punished Daschle, Breaux, Carnahan, and Cleland. Is that not enough?

Are we to demand two pounds of flesh?

[yurbud]

95. How exactly could Saddam have threatened us? We have 10,000 nukes. At most, he could have

limited our options to invade or intimidate him if he got his hands on some nukes.

That is not a threat. That is an irritant.

Similarly, even if his missiles could reach Israel, they have 200-400 nukes, some on subs, so they would be able to retaliate no matter how devastating the attack. Do you think that all Arabs are congenitally retarded and suicidal?

Saying that the resolution was going to pass anyway is the most infuriating excuse to vote for something. I want my representatives to at least be on the record saying that a lie is a lie. I wish you hadn't reminded me how many times Democrats took that coward's way out the last few years.

[leftchick]

14. because the ones that voted for it "have strings attached"

hil especially. Dennis K does not and it showed with his NO vote.

[David Zephyr]

25. Exactly. Dennis was brave and stood with the 156 on 10/11/02.

The "I was misled" excuse insults Dennis and the rest.

[Adelante]

127. But so does the "I'm sorry" excuse

insult Dennis and the rest, and certainly the American and Iraqi publics. It's good they're sorry. I forgive them. It's fine they feel misled. I even understand that some of them had good intentions. But I do not forgive so much as to think any one of them should ever be president. Especially in this election, while the whole thing still rages, when we're verging on a THIRD war, because the IWR judgment has brought such tragic results. On a practical level, if the Republicans nominate a candidate who did not vote for the IWR and the Democrats choose one who did vote for the IWR, what on earth will we have to say for ourselves? Sorry?

[MGKrebs]

76. You know what, that's great. I love DK.

He is a great Rep. If only he could organize a serious campaign for President, I would be proud to vote for him. I might anyway in the primary. But he better show some sign of being able to win the general, or we will lose again. Who will be responsible for that?

[lligrd]

15. What Else Would They Say?

I voted for it to save my poltical future and I was wrong about that too.

[David Zephyr]

26. I like the way you think, lligrd.

It would be honest.

[nadinbrzezinski]

16. I got it without access to ALL the info

and these a-holes didn't?

Kids saying the dog ate my homework is one thing... but these guys have no exuses in my book

[robinlynne]

17. There were thousands of us against the war. It was not a difficult decision

to make! i.e. I absolutely agree.

[Holly_Hobby]

19. Just how stupid do they think we are?

If they're that dense to be misled by information that was blatantly and obviously incorrect, they need to resign and we'll replace them with people who have a grasp of critical thinking and an inkling of skepticism.

I have a HS education and knew it was a load of crap.

[JackRiddler]

21. They are liars, pure and simple. (Unless they are morons.)

All countries of the Security Council, regardless of whatever statements their diplomats may have made, were well aware that all Iraqi WMDs and delivery systems and the country's entire technical capacity for build WMDs had been fully explored and destroyed by the UN teams by 1998.

As soon as this "mission accomplished" point was reached, the chief field inspector for the UN mission to disarm Iraq in the years 1993-1998, former US Marine Scott Ritter, was ordered to fake an Iraqi provocation to help justify Clinton's bombing of Iraq - interesting, isn't it? Ritter resigned, and produced a great documentary, "In Shifting Sands," which though it is largely his personal testament is also impossible to argue with, since he knows exactly whereof he speaks.

Ritter said the only trace WMDs that might be left in the country after 1998 would be stores that the Iraqis themselves had genuinely lost track of. All of the players prior to the 2003 invasion knew the WMD show was a farce, and it would have been foolhardy for the US to claim finding them after the invasion.

At an appearance in Berlin, Ritter explained to me at length, before the Iraq invasion, why the US could not fake or plant chemical or biological weapons in Iraq and get away with it. These weapons exhibit specific signatures from manufacturing process, changes in location, and time. There is no way to, for example, fake gas made by an Iraqi process in 1997 and aged by six years before it is found "coincidentally" by a UK unit or a UN inspection.

The US case for invading Iraq faced international opposition. To make a claim of finding WMDs credible, the US would have had to put it up to the scrutiny of UN teams. The deception would have been exposed.

The alternative was simply to claim finding WMDs without allowing international scrutiny. Ritter predicted this would happen, and indeed in 2003 the US military produced a variety of bogus reports about finding "substances" that must be the longed-for WMDs. These reports had the intended, limited success of convincing the already once-suckered supporters of the war at home. This is why even to this day, certain proportions of people in polls think WMDs were found in Iraq. However, of course these reports were not followed up with any international scrutiny, and no one in the world outside the FOX-viewing segment of the US public believed it.

So if a SENATOR now claims they were fooled by Bush, we can excuse them as mere liars. Unless they prefer to be known as total morons, since a) they let Bush fool them despite readily available facts to the contrary and/or b) they were so stupid they didn't realize the full scale of the WMD deception was bound to come out after the invasion.

[David Zephyr]

28. Thanks for mentioning Scott Ritter. He & DU's Will Pitt exposed the WMD myth

before the invasion. And the DU archives before the IWR vote are filled with posts that discredited the Adminstration's lies. Many are my own.

I like how you say: "So if a SENATOR now claims they were fooled by Bush, we can excuse them as mere liars. Unless they prefer to be known as total morons, since a) they let Bush fool them despite readily available facts to the contrary and/or b) they were so stupid they didn't realize the full scale of the WMD deception was bound to come out after the invasion."

[glitch]

107. Not to excuse them, but what if they thought bush admin capable of planting wmds.

Then their vote against would bite them in the ass when the planted wmds were subsequently found.

DUer Peace Patriot has an interesting theory that that is what they tried to do but the plot to plant was foiled, ties in with David Kelly's death and the Plame leak.

[cool user name]

57. Excellent post, JackRiddler ...

Didn't the government go after Scott Ridder around 2004 with "child pornography" charges only to be dismissed?

I seem to remember something about that.

[MGKrebs]

22. Total crap.

Fact: Bush did mislead the nation about Iraq. This cannot be denied.

Absolutely nothing would have changed even if all Dems had voted against, which was never was going to happen anyway.

Assigning blame to anyone but Bush for this disaster helps the Neocons.

Bush is the one who decided.
Bush is the one who screwed up.
Bush is to blame.

It is so sad that some must stoop to such a low level as to transfer responsibility for the war from George Bush to a Dem, presumably to try and gain an advantage for their candidate.

[JackRiddler]

31. Crap back atcha.

It is sad that one should mischaracterize the OP as an attempt to "shift blame away from Bush." This is creating a false dichotomy.

The blame is on
- Bush,
- the Rumsfeldian/neocon war planners and fabricators of the false intelligence,
- the corporate media who faithfully transmitted the lies, all along knowing better,
- the Republican majority in Congress
- and on EVERY SINGLE opportunistic Democrat in Congress who went against evidence, morality and reason to vote with the "popular" president in favor of an illegal and unconstitutional war of aggression

-- although about half and possibly a majority of the American people already opposed the war!

Let's not forget the UK and other governments who joined in "the coalition" despite the overwhelming opposition of all of their peoples!

In other words, there is no contradiction in saying,
Fuck them both: Bush and his Clintonian bench-warmers.

[PassingFair]

50. If the democrats (sans Lieberman) had presented a united front

AGAINST the war, we would have KILLED Bush in the 04 election.

Instead, we trotted out a good man on a PATHETIC, flip-flopping,
"reporting for duty" schtick that was UNSUPPORTABLE.

He was unable to debate Bush. It was EMBARRASSING.

He lost even when he won.

The bullshit must stop NOW.

[David Zephyr]

34. So what do you say to the 156 Democrats who voted against the IWR?

Were they idiots? Were they grandstanding?

And if the vote didn't matter, as you say (I say it did matter as the White House still crows about having congressional approval including "many Democrats"), then why not vote against it. If, as you suggest, the IWR vote had no consequence, then why did Hillary Clinton vote for it instead of voting against it or at least abstaining?

The hard stubborn truth is that the longer that she continues to claim that she was "misled" the deeper the hole she digs for herself. Her campaign gurus should have figured this out for themselves. A woman that already was misled by her husband in front of the entire world should hardly choose to say that another man misled her on another very important matter. It makes her look like a fool.

[MGKrebs]

48. I say to those Dems that I honor their vote, and respect

their courage. It must have been a difficult vote to cast. I'm sure the Repubs were salivating over using it against Dems in upcoming elections, which they did to great effect.
I too marched against the war before there was a war. I despaired at the conclusion of the vote. But my despair was because clearly there were not enough people who cared enough to make things different. I already had no faith in George Bush, but I didn't have to cast a vote one year after 9/11 and in the face of terrorist paranoia. If I did, would I have tried to rationalize my vote by saying it was only "permission" for him to use force, and that the responsibility would still be his or the UN's? I don't know. I think I would have voted against, but that is easy to say from the cheap seats.

[sandnsea]

52. Exhibit A - Cynthia McKinney

October 2002. Where does she say she KNEW there were no WMD in Iraq? If she KNEW, why did she use the word "exaggerated" instead of "false"? This is Cynthia McKinney for chrissake, and she didn't even say she KNEW.

http://www.counterpunch.org/mckinney1008.html

[Lerkfish]

47. *um point of order*

what congress did was vote to ALLOW Bush to wage war without their permission.
what that means is they voluntarily abdicated their responsible as part of the checks and balances triad.
No matter whether the scant evidence was misleading or not, they acted unconstitutionally to do so, IMHO.

[MedleyMisty]

60. If you're not with us you're against us, eh?

The Democrats who voted for the IWR were either incredibly stupid and gullible or complicit.

Either way, I don't want any of them running the country.

I knew it was a totally evil bullshit lie. It wasn't that hard to figure out, and that was without their access to information and without being a total expert on Iraq and the Middle East.

[MGKrebs]

80. Ah yes, and that is the point: Who to vote for.

A candidate who SAYS they were against the war, but didn't have to actually cast a vote.
A candidate who voted against the IWR but has shown no ability to run a national campaign.
A candidate who cast a vote that reflected the majority opinion in their state and the country and would have no effect on the eventual outcome anyway.

Have fun with President Guliani.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. The "Duh, I wuz fooled.." excuse doesn't look good on a candidate's resume.

For any office other than village idiot.

[David Zephyr]

38. You'd think the eggheads like Carville would have figured that out.

She was already "fooled" once by her husband, regrettably, in front of the entire world. This excuse makes her look bad again and, as I said, insults and infuriates the Democrats who opposed the War in Iraq and never bought into the WMD lie.

For all the political wisdom and experience that the Clinton crowd boast to have, they are painting themselves into a losing corner.

[NobleCynic]

65. Hey!

Congress needs a village idiot or two. How boring would politics be without drunk driving politicians, racial slur throwing politicians, RIDICULOUSLY BLATANT corruption (emphasis needed to distinguish from your ordinary run of the mill corruption), and constant verbal trip-ups.

We just didn't need the village idiot to be commander in chief. Head of the sub-committee on Steriods in baseball? Sure. Just not president.

But don't disrespect the role of village idiot in Congress. Without it... well... I'd lose my standard C-SPAN drinking game. (Take a drink every time a Republican questions the patriotism of a Democrat or implies oversight/debate means the terrorists have won. Drink twice if it Lieberman saying it.)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

79. I doubt that there will ever be a lack of successful applicants for the position in congress.

Or, alas, the presidency. As H.L. Mencken's prediction has proved true on, at least, two occasions.

“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” - H.L. Mencken

[NobleCynic]

109. What a quote!

Saving to hard drive for future use

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

110. The problem being it's all too true. As the present moron infesting the WH proves.

[Jacobin]

27. I agree. That mantra is a republic blame game ploy

they all had the information they needed to vote the right way. MANY did vote the right way. WE knew it was a pack of lies and that 9/11 wasn't connected, etc.

It was a political vote that shows lack of judgment at best and moral decay at the worst and I won't forget it, nor will the millions of Iraqis whose country we have obliterated or the thousands of americans who are dead or maimed because of congress going along with this neo-con nightmare

[MGKrebs]

33. Let's see here, "I was deceived by Bush" is a Republican

strategy, and "it wasn't Bush's fault, it was Hillary's" is the proper Dem strategy?


OoooK.

[Jacobin]

36. Let's try this again

Blaming others for your OWN mistakes is a republic trait.
on edit: The mistake being casting a boundlessly foolish and idiotic vote supporting a reckless invasion of another country that posed us no threat.

Got it?

[David Zephyr]

39. Right on.

"It was a political vote that shows lack of judgment at best and moral decay at the worst and I won't forget it, nor will the millions of Iraqis whose country we have obliterated or the thousands of americans who are dead or maimed because of congress going along with this neo-con nightmare."

[MGKrebs]

82. Why don't you hold George W. Bush accountable?

Do you think there is a Dem candidate who would act like Bush?

[Individualist]

29. K&R

Those who voted for IWR knew exactly what they were doing.

[Bucky]

35. While we were right (and not fooled) and they were obviously wrong, I disagree w/ the OP

Yes, it was obvious to me that the war was on, that the resolution in Congress was a set up, and that the whole ritual of presenting evidence to the UN was a sham ("Win or lose: I want to see the whip count" Bush said before declining to press for a final vote in the UN Security Council).

But those who I disagreed with on the matter simply saw matters differently than me. I'm no Clinton supporter and I'm upset she won't say her vote was a mistake, but to have been fooled in a time of crisis when the whole history of the presidency is one of men who usually used good judgment and honest persuasion is a forgiveable error. It was a disagreement about an issue, not a disagreement on principle.

This was an error of judgment, not a character flaw. An argument we have had is not a basis for a grudge.

[walldude]

44. I've been trying to meet with these "I was misled" folks

I have some beachfront property in Kansas for sale...

[charlie]

46. The phrase annoys me

If you bought oranges on sale, 6 for the price of a half dozen, you were misled. You say you gave your assent to WAR based on bad info, then the GREASY SUMBITCH MUTHAFUCKER LIED TO YOU. If this godzilla-sized clusterfuck started with lies, show some outrage proportionate to the crime, for chrissakes. Shaddup with the "misled" stuff.

[David Zephyr]

63. Amen and amen.

Ha! Now how do you really feel? "Saddup with the 'misled' stuff." Amen.

[Pastiche423]

49. You give credit to edwards

because now that he is running for president, he says it got it wrong?

That paragraph negates everything else you wrote in your OP.

What strange logic you have. Especially since he is touting the extreme danger Iran is to us.

[David Zephyr]

64. I do and have written so before.

I give him credit, as my post states, for having the decency to admit, without making excuses even when given the opportunity to do so, that he made a mistake on what he called his "most important vote" while he was in the Senate. What do you want him to do, hang on a cross? He's acknowledged that he alone made that mistake. Come on!

I am not supporting John Edwards. Of the announced candidates, I am not in any "corner". I do hope that Wes Clark, who opposed the war from the beginning, will join in. That said, Senator Obama and Congressman Dennis Kucinich have me cheering for them, and former Senator John Edwards has said he was wrong, not misled, on the IWR. I have to take the man at his word. My intent here is not to harbor animosity toward anyone...I just am fed up with the "I was misled" excuse because it is insulting and depreciative to the Democrats that voted against the IWR.

[Pastiche423]

67. I hope we can agree to disagree

when it comes to edwards. My dislike of him is personal and intense. He is not trustworthy and I don't want anyone hurt by him, especially you.

On a brighter note, I echo your cheering for Obama and Kucinich. Both are great candidates that could turn our ship of state around. There is still a tiny bit of hope in my heart that Al Gore will run. If he does, I will do everything in my power to see him in the WH again.

Peace

[David Zephyr]

68. We can and will.

And on a brighter note for you, ABC is reporting that President Carter is asking Al Gore to run again for President, so your "hope" should be a bit brighter still.

[Pastiche423]

70. Thank you, David

[Clark2008]

120. I feel exactly as you do regarding Edwards

So rare on this board.

I'm left with wondering why others can't see how untrustworthy he is. Makes no sense to me.

[Seabiscuit]

75. Back in 2005 Edwards was one of the first, if not the first, to admit it.

This is NOT something he recently came up with in order to run for President in 2008.

I'm not backing anyone yet. But Edwards and Obama have my attention. Hillary lost it years ago. Not not just for her championing the Iraq war.

Of course, all my fingers are crossed for a successful "Draft Gore" movement.

[The Count]

83. There were a number of Senators admitting it in 2004. Edwards ran a whole race

in 2004 on "I voted because I was in the intelligence committee and know it all"
And to this day is very quiet about his sponsorship of the damn IWR - which puts him in a deeper circle of hell than Hillary, kerry & al.
As for "Iran should know we won't back down" - that genie is out of the bottle too - i don't care how many times he re-shuffles the message for different audiences.
As far as I am concerned, he is the easiest pawn for PNAC to use - the way they use *. Easier than Hillary and even the GOP-ers.

[cool user name]

54. I very much agree.

And not only will she not own up to her mistake, she's fucking threatening Iran with the "all options are on the table" comment.

Fuck her.

Edit: to insert the word "not"

[Solly Mack]

55. I was misled by a man who got the office after suspect members of the

SCOTUS ruled in his favor following an election that stunk worse than fish left out in the sun for 3 days and as about as legit as counterfeit money, who ran an election campaign filled with appalling lies and hate-filled attacks, whose record as governor was nothing to brag about and worse, and who had people working for him that were known to be corrupt in their dealings - that he brought into the White House with him, along with former thugs of the Iran-Contra scandal.

But that's just me and what I hear when someone says "Bush misled me"

[Seabiscuit]

77. Anyone with eyes that could see and ears that could hear knew if Bush's lips

were moving, he was lying.

[MGKrebs]

87. And?

[Seabiscuit]

100. And...

... a whole lot of other stuff too long to ramble on about here, beginning with:

"Why are we suddenly being told that Saddam has been accumulating all those tons of sarin and mustard gas? And since neither we nor the U.N. has been in Iraq for years, how could they possibly know to the exact ton how much he has? And where did that come from? And why hasn't anyone mentioned it for over a decade?"

"Oh, yeah, Rumsfeld visited Saddam and told him he could buy it from us. Which he did. We know how much Saddam has because we have the receipts to prove the transactions and the amounts."

"But that was when Reagan was in office."

"Wait a minute - didn't the UN inspectors after the Gulf War destroy all that stuff (what was left of it after Iraq's war with Iran)? Oh, yeah, that's right... they DID. And Secretary of State Powell publicly acknowledged the same back in the spring of 2002."

"Well, gee, it's all been gone for over a decade then."

"So... Bush is lying."

"BINGO!"

[yurbud]

61. GRAPH & VIDEO on nuclear "threat" to US:

Click pics to see flicks:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqySikgiviw"> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXpZLgHXRhE">

[The Count]

81. There's no good excuse. "I take responsibility - now vote for me" is insulting too

I believe Johnson had it right: "I take responsibility for Vietnam, I shall not run for re-election"

[yurbud]

99. The apology I would accept: I thought the Iraqis would roll over, and the oil companies promised

me a position on their board of directors when I retire.

[tabasco]

84. Both of my senators voted against the IWR. I'm proud of them.

That's the kind of judgment and leadership we deserve!

Settle for more of the same and we'll get more of the same.

[slipslidingaway]

92. K&R!!! n/t

[yurbud]

98. It's sad to see people here still peddling GOP fear-mongering lies. Maybe their afraid we won't buy

the Iran War if we see through their shtick from the last time around.

[mmonk]

101. It's an insult to the people of this nation.

I figured it out before the invasion and I'm not even in the US Senate.

[FrenchieCat]

102. Yes, they knew....all they had to do was to open their papers....

or listen to those who testified to congress, and those who spoke on the floor of the senate.

There were many reason to vote Against the Resolution, and very few reasons to vote For it.

It's not even about IF Saddam had some biological or chemical weapons (that we sold to him)....it was about the fact that Iraq WAS NOT A THREAT...AND CERTAINLY NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT. He didn't have nuclear weapons or the capability to deliver them.

And then to use a lame excuse like "I wanted to trust George Bush"/// on a matter of war and peace was crazy after he had stolen the election and we had been hit by terrorists ON HIS WATCH?
.....well those who wanted to do that....demonstrated horrible judgment!

Why do I want to reward anyone with that kind of bad judgment with a seat holding the highest office in the land?

I don't even get it, just like I didn't get how our congress watched Bush drag us off into a war! :shrug:

[SaveElmer]

108. John Edwards is talking out both sides of his mouth...

He hasn't been humble, nor has he taken "responsibility." He is trying to appear as though he is, while explaining his vote with the same accurate reasons as the others who voted Yes have...

[dogday]

115. It is insulting to all of us who knew this war

was a farce to begin with...

[Greyhound]

116. Is it still an insult if those insulted are too dim to realize they've been insulted? n/t

[merh]

130. Have you guys not been paying attention?

The DOD IG's office released a report on the 8th that this admin cooked the intel and gave Congress the cooked intel. They thought they had intel you and I didn't have, they thought they were given the classifed information that there were WMDs.

Now, if they don't impeach the bloodsucking, greedy bastards that had the intel cooked and that sold them the bill of "classified" goods, they all deserve to burn in hell with the weed and his lying minions.

[sweetheart]

131. santa clause blew up the world trade center

19 little saudi secret service elves joined up with ISI elves to gift
a new pakistani-saudi-american century of heinous tyranny of criminal murderers
against democracy... long live hitler, cheney, stalin and bush.