We weren't misled--We were lied to. Dems don't be nice to Dumya --and

[European Socialist]

those who did vote for war, you have no excuse to attack another country for what they might do in the future.

[still_one]

1. I agree, loud and clear bush is a liar, and we were lied to

[stepnw1f]

2. Bush Lied.

And conspired to cover-up those lies. And still is lying today.

[daninthemoon]

3. Bush lied, people died. Thousands of people! More every day.

Damn him and his lies.

[IndianaGreen]

4. DLC advised the Congressional Democrats to vote for war

Published on Thursday, October 3, 2002 by The Nation
Now, It's Gephardt's War, Too
by David Corn

If war comes, it will not only be Bush's war. It will be Gephardt's war. Other key shareholders will be Democratic Senators Joseph Lieberman and John Edwards, two presidential wannabes who have been pre-running as get-Saddam hawks. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle's stake in the enterprise is uncertain as of this writing. He has griped about Bush's politicized rhetoric and raised questions about Bush's dash toward war, but has not opposed the underlying policy. (And Daschle can thank Gephardt, who held his own unilateral negotiations with the White House, for cutting a deal that undermined any move Daschle might have contemplated to limit the use-of-force resolution.) Most Democrats in both the House and the Senate are expected to vote in favor of authorizing Bush to mount a war--even a unilateral one--against Saddam Hussein.

Which means that on the most vital issue of this election season, there is little distinction between the two parties. The Republicans are almost entirely for this war; the Democrats are mostly for it. Whatever happens--good, bad, in-between--Gephardt and the war-enabling Dems will bear responsibility and will deserve to be judged alongside Bush. In fact, some might deserve to be judged more harshly. It is no secret that on Capitol Hill, many Democrats are motivated to vote for the resolution out of political calculation. They do not believe war against Iraq at this time is a good idea, but they fear looking soft or being caught on the wrong side of what might be a popular war. They are hoping to buy security--their own-- with blood.

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1003-08.htm

[bluedog]

5. Remember his letter to Senate and House March 21.20003?

********** I have reluctantly concluded, along with other coalition leaders, that only the use of armed force will accomplish these objectives and restore international peace and security in the area.


******* I have also determined that the use of armed force against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organiza-tions, or persons who planned, authorized, committed,


or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001. United States objectives also support a transition to democracy in Iraq, as contemplated by the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

Consistent with the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), ************I now inform you that pursuant to my authority as Commander in Chief and consistent with the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) and the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), ***********I directed U.S. Armed Forces, operating with other coalition forces, to commence combat operations on March 19, 2003, against Iraq.

These military operations have been carefully planned to accomplish our goals with the minimum loss of life among coalition military forces and to innocent civilians. It is not possible to know at this time either the duration of active combat operations or the scope or duration of the deployment of U.S. Armed Forces necessary to accomplish our goals fully.


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030321-5.html



and then this CNN item

Friday, October 11, 2002 Posted: 12:35 PM EDT (1635 GMT)
Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln, D-Arkansas, reads aloud the results of the Senate vote on the resolution.
Sen. Blanche L. Lincoln, D-Arkansas, reads aloud the results of the Senate vote on the resolution.
Story Tools
Save a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.comSave a link to this article and return to it at www.savethis.com Email a link to this articleEmail a link to this article
Printer-friendly version of this articlePrinter-friendly version of this article View a list of the most popular articles on our siteView a list of the most popular articles on our site

more video VIDEO
CNN's Jamie McIntyre looks at the enforcement of no-fly zones over Iraq by the U.S. and Turkey. (October 10)
premium content
PLAY VIDEO
CNN's Nic Robertson is allowed to tour an Iraqi heavy industry complex, thought to be a place where nuclear components are made (October 10)
premium content
PLAY VIDEO
Many Iraqis are skeptical about George W. Bush's claim that the U.S. is a friend to the Iraqi people. CNN's Jane Arraf reports (October 9)
premium content
PLAY VIDEO

RELATED
• Roll Call: See how your senator voted
• Interactive: Voices from the debate
• Time.com: Should we attack Iraq? external link
• Time.com: Iraq: Terror behind the lines? external link

SPECIAL REPORT
• War Tracker
• On the Scene Map
• Commanders: U.S. | Iraq
• Weapons: 3D Models
• Coalition casualties | POW/MIA
• Special Report

ON CNN TV
Watch SHOWDOWN: IRAQ anchored by CNN's Wolf Blitzer weekdays at noon (ET) for in-depth coverage of the conflict with the latest news and debate from around the world.

FACT BOX
• "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, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."

• The resolution requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of any military action against Iraq and submit, at least every 60 days, a report to Congress on the military campaign.

• The resolution does not tie any U.S. action to a U.N. resolution.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- In a major victory for the White House, the Senate early Friday voted 77-23 to authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.


http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/




note************authorize President Bush to attack Iraq if Saddam Hussein refuses to give up weapons of mass destruction as required by U.N. resolutions.

well, inspectors were in.didn't find anything and bush got impatient and pulled them out.....so this is his war and his war only.........

[longship]

6. Politically, it's much more powerful to frame the message

as deception, or something soft like that. Then, when the truth sinks in and the citizenry realizes that ChimpCo has outright lied to everybody, it won't be the Dems who started it. Of course, there are many who are already saying it, so by avoiding "liar, liar, pants on fire" the Dems come out smelling like a rose.

In today's Senate leadership speech with Reid, Durbin, and Levin, they all called it "deception".