There was no “information at the time” that would justify invading Iraq.

[rhett o rick]

Let’s clear something up once and for all. I totally understand why republicans rationalize / justify why we invaded Iraq. They claim it was necessary based on the “information we had at the time”. But when democrats use this rational to justify the support of Clinton, Kerry, Cantwell or other democrats for invading Iraq, I am very disappointed. Before you use this argument please explain exactly what information you’re talking about. Exactly what is this mysterious “information they had at the time”? Are you talking about the plastic pipe that Powell said was for making nuclear weapons? Are you talking about the testimony of a couple tortured prisoners? Or maybe the testimony of Half-baked, Curveball or Chainsaw or whatever the hell name he used, who was known by all the intelligence agencies as unreliable. That’s all the so called “information they had at the time” I have ever heard of. Almost forgot the two, count em two truck trailer so-called laboratories. Does anyone know of any other “information at the time”?? Anyone, anyone. Please help me out here. I mean whatever the information was it must have been extremely compelling to warrant the invasion of Iraq and the killing of thousands of our troops, the killing of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi’s and the tremendous expense. What was so very compelling?

All of the intelligence agencies of the world knew there were no WMD, but some how republicans and some democrats had some mysterious “information at the time”.

I you want to forgive Kerry, Cantwell, Clinton and the others that yielded their Constitutional responsibility to the Unitary Executive GWB, that’s your business and your conscience, but please, please don’t justify it by saying they did the best they could with the “information they had at the time”. They definitely did not.

[rhett o rick]

1. Comments?? Anyone.....anyone?? nm

[Paranoid Pessimist]

2. I forgive nobody. President Junior is about to send a bunch

more troops, according to news reports aired last night. 75% of the country is against this, according to reports of polls, but Bush and his cronies are saying, in effect, "Fuck them; we know what's best; their opinions don't count." For top Democrats to do anything less than howl for their heads is unconscionable.

But it points out that the Great Victory in the last election, where supposedly "the Republicans got their asses handed to them" is also wishful thinking.

I have no idea how the slide towards totalitarianism can be stopped. The so-called contenders, Obama, Hillary, Edwards are all cautious establishmentarians who will not go against the Powers That Be except in small, symbolic ways, occasional speeches.

Unless some sort of leader emerges from the populace who can articulate the progressive case passionately and charismatically, so much so that the media will not be able to ignore him (or her), the co-opting of democracy will continue -- at least until environmental conditions reach the flashpoint where global social breakdown kicks in.

[lfairban]

31. Leader?

Unless some sort of leader emerges from the populace who can articulate the progressive case passionately and charismatically, so much so that the media will not be able to ignore him (or her), the co-opting of democracy will continue -- at least until environmental conditions reach the flashpoint where global social breakdown kicks in.

How about Bob Fitrakis

[gratuitous]

3. Part of the information at the time

A not inconsiderable tidbit of information available at the time was the political calculus of a substantial majority of the public that had been stampeded into believing that Saddam Hussein's Iraq posed an imminent threat to the United States, whether it was anthrax, drone bombers, suicide attacks, or whatever. Responsible opposing viewpoints existed, as evidenced by the millions of people demonstrating in the streets, but the public airwaves and print space were given over exclusively to folks in favor of invasion.

In such an atmosphere, it was not politically possible to articulate an opposing viewpoint. Anyone who did was immediately savaged in news cycle after news cycle by the ever-vigilant custodians of the nation's discussion fora. "Coward" or "pantywaist" was the centrist position, but more often it was "traitor" or "terrorist sympathizer" that attended any discussion of dissent from the topic at hand, which was invading Iraq and disarming a dictator.

The information available at the time was very carefully managed to provide maximum impetus to invading Iraq, and anything that got in the way of that was steamrollered. Would it have been courageous for the Democrats to band together to stop the march to war? Yes, it would have been courageous. Would it have stopped the march? I'm prepared to say it would not have done a damn thing.

[rhett o rick]

4. Are you trying to rationalize their rationalization?

Hey thanks for responding. Regardless of what the media was saying, regardless of being called a traitor, they were obligated to do the best thing for the Country. If they wouldn't under that pressure, how can they make good Presidents. The fact that their opposition would not have been effective is not a reason to give GWB the power to go to war. They should have gone on record as standing up against the tyrannical unitary executive dictator. Instead they just went along and we may never recover.

[gratuitous]

5. But what is the best thing for the country at any given time?

Is being marginalized and turned out of office the "best" thing? You've presumably seen what has happened to a responsible opposing viewpoint, that of Cynthia McKinney, who continues to take a great deal of criticism from not only the loony right, but even here at DU. Or Max Cleland, who tried to articulate a more nuanced approach? Or John Kerry, just for saying the word "nuanced"? All three of them, for being right at the wrong time, have been either turned out of office or reduced to a punch line on the late night shows.

We will certainly recover from this latest fiasco, but the damage has been quite extensive. Who's in the best position to move the country back to accountability? McKinney, Cleland and Kerry? If they ever regain their former positions, it will probably be long past time to effect any change at this time, when the country really needs it. And the ultimate healing of the country from the cancer of another Bush presidency will probably come Dubya's famous fifty years down the line. But for now, we're going to have to support the leaders we have, and work with them to become the leaders we want.

[rhett o rick]

7. I so totally disagree. The whole idea of a representative type of

government is to elect smart people to represent us. They are supposed to save us from ourselves. This war is an excellent example. 75% of the Country has come to their senses since the invasion. The representatives are in a better position than the general public to determine the truth. They should have unitedly stood up to and spoke out loudly against the horrible horrible war. You think we will recover. I hope you are right, I personally think the myth of the US being the saviour of the free world has been busted. And all the kings horses etc. Also, even if we do recover, the middle east won't. We pulled the pin on a bomb that has been waiting to go off. We can't stop it now.

[gratuitous]

8. Whoops, sorry

I thought you were looking for discussion; you were looking to make declamations about what people should have done four years ago based on what we know now, and what the media are willing to report. I'll get out of the way; pardon my interruption.

[rhett o rick]

11. Must I agree to make it a discussion. The democrats knew at the time

that Bush was lying but choose to support him. That wasn't the best for the Country at the time.

[lfairban]

32. I have thought about this a lot.

In order to understand the situation I think it is helpful to consider where the institutions of representative democracy started and how they have changed over the years.

In the beginning, the Constitution was not very democratic, the Declaration of Independence was more so, and far more general. The only concession to direct representative government was the lower house of the legislature. The country was smaller, the governments was smaller, the congress was smaller, and the Representatives had far smaller constituencies. The prestige associated with being a congressman or senator was far less than it is today. This means that each representative was far less vested in retaining his position than is probably true for the career politicians of today, possibly making it easier for them to take an unpopular stand based on principle.

The other problem is the sticky question of "how much democracy is a good thing". Too much and you have mob rule, too little and you have totalitarianism. For instance, compare the comment in post #2:

75% of the country is against this, according to reports of polls, but Bush and his cronies are saying, in effect, "Fuck them; we know what's best; their opinions don't count." For top Democrats to do anything less than howl for their heads is unconscionable.

. . . and this in post #4:

Regardless of what the media was saying, regardless of being called a traitor, they were obligated to do the best thing for the Country.

It would seem that we want our representatives, including the president to do both at the same time, respond to our wishes and stand on principle. This example ignores the validity of the arguments in order to describe the conceptual conundrum. I am well aware that Bush is probably wrong now and the representatives were wrong then. I am only trying to show that this is not a situation that is easy to address.

[rhett o rick]

33. Thank you for keeping me honest. I truly appreciate it. I catch myself

trying to make the problem too simple. But you are right. In fact I must say that Bush doing what he believes in may be more honorable than certain democrats who, I believe, sold us out for political expediency. Plez don't mis understand me, what Bush and the neocons did was horrible, but that's their nature. The democrats that voted to support them knew better but did so only to look patriotic. Clinton now says she wouldn't have done it had she known then what she knows now. She must be referring to public opinion not the WMD intelligence. At the time she supported the neocons she sold us out. Plan and simple, she and the others that yielded to the republicans sold us out. Now they want us to forgive and forget. Sorry I can't. It is a matter of integrity and they don't have any.

ps: thanks for your insightful response.

[Trajan]

34. They made the mistake of believing what they were told ...

They were shown the 'intelligence' that was cooked up in the OSP, and believed it to be true ....

I agree with Gratuitous's analysis .... While we would have preferred they had more BALLS and CAUTION during that pivotal moment, the environment was against easy answers to difficult questions ...

There is no doubt the GOP manipulated that environment to the greatest degree for political reasons, and while I wish they would have withstood the pressure, many of them simply didnt believe they were being lied to .... They were naive .... like most americans were ....

I will not condemn those who acted in good faith ....

[rhett o rick]

35. Exactly what intelligence, cooked or not, were they shown?

When asked, they refuse to explain what intelligence they saw at the time that was so vivid, so compelling as to give GWB power to kill hundreds of thousands, possibly set off World War III. What was that information, intelligence, or evidence? None has ever been brought forth except the measly stuff I mentioned in my original post. If they didn't know that Bushco was lying, they were fools. I don't believe they were fools. I believe they did not act in good faith, but yielded to public pressure instead of standing up for what was right and obvious to them at the time. John Kerry has apologized but not explained, Maria Cantwell refuses to discuss her decision to give Bushco war powers, and Hillary Clinton says she wouldn't have done it knowing what she knows now. She must be speaking about public opinion because she did know then that there was no evidence of WMD or no link to al Quada.

[Morgana LaFey]

30. "Politically possible" doesn't cut it -- that's cowardice of the 1st order

and when so many lives are at stake -- ours and theirs -- it's a war crime in MY book if not technically.

A WAR CRIME.

Let's be clear: it wasn't that difficult to get the information needed to KNOW that everything the administration spat out was a bald-faced lie, or likely (99% chance) a lie. Millions of people knew it. DUers knew it, save for a very small minority. There's no excuse for Congressional staffs not to have done the homework to KNOW better. If our elected Democratic representatives aren't any more competent than that, they certainly don't deserve to be our President. We want to rid the WHite House of incompetence, not install more!

[pberq]

6. There was plenty of information at the time

http://www.traprockpeace.org/traprock_video/index.php/2006/11/18/9/

Scott Ritter’s Early Warning on Iraq

This is vintage Scott Ritter. Video quality is poor (2002 afterall, taken with a digital still camera.) Five clips are included; please excuse the poor video quality - it was 2002 afterall. He debunks the claims that Iraq was developing nukes, and the often stated lie that Iraq kicked the inspectors out of Iraq in 1998 (right before the Clinton Administration started the Desert Fox cruise missile bombing campaign. Ritter asked for help in getting called as a witness to the upcoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearings. Traprock sent several hundred faxes to John Kerry asking for his assistance (he is on the committee). Sen. Kerry not only wouldn’t have Ritter called, he refused to meet with Ritter or his antiwar constituents before he voted for the war resolution in October, 2002. Sen. Kerry has blood on his hands, as surely as the Bush Administration, in this writer’s opinion (Charlie Jenks). After his vote for war, Kerry locked his constituents out of his WMass office.

See more on Kerry’s complicity at http://traprockpeace.org/john_kerry_was_misled.html

And see much more on Scott Ritter at http://traprockpeace.org/scott_ritter.html
You’ll see Traprock’s history with Scott Ritter, which included a national tour before the War Resolution vote, and resources, including audio, video and transcripts.

[Quantess]

9. Here's your 5th Rec. And yes, there was plenty of information at the time.

I remember being infuriated that the several people, the several organizations, who insisted that there were no WMDs, were summarily dismissed.

[tblue37]

10. The key information the Dems had at the time

was that the media and BushCo and the Republcians were all setting them up to look weak on national security if they resisted the push to invade Iraq, and the American public was buying it. The information they had at the time was that they might endanger their own precious political careers if they stood on principle simply because we knew Saddam didn't have WMDs and was fully cooperating with the inspections.

[Quantess]

14. Sadly, that's probably true, from a politician's standpoint.

From my standpoint it sucked ass! Sorry to tell you politicians so bluntly!

[rhett o rick]

27. Those that supported Bushco under those circumstances had / have no integrity. nm

[OneBlueSky]

12. anyone with half a brain KNEW at the time that there was no justification . . .

for invading Iraq, and that the entire enterprise was based on a series of outright lies . . . that our "representatives" in Congress caved to BushCo and essentially surrendered their war-making power and responsibility is, to me, unforgivable . . . because they, too, knew it was based on lies -- and they chose political expediency over doing what was right . . . their actions have cost thousands of American lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and left an entire nation destitute and devastated, both culturally and environmentally . . .

another thing that I find hard to overlook is the fact that NOT ONE Member of Congress or Senator actually read the Patriot Act, yet voted for it anyhow . . . that too is unforgivable -- and just plain god-damned irresponsible and downright stupid . . .

my 2008 support will go to Al Gore, who fortunately wasn't in the position of having to vote for either the war or the Patriot Act . . . I understand that his background is as an ultimate insider, but I truly believe that he's grown immensely since leaving office and that he's not the same man he was in 2000 . . . he's more enlightened, more committed, and more spiritual (for lack of a better word) . . .

the one thing that most convinced me was his sending two jetliners to New Orleans at his own expense to evacuate critically ill patients (who were stuck at the airport) to Nashville for medical treatment -- without seeking any publicity or recognition whatsoever . . . that and his work on the environment and, particularly, global warming . . . if ever we -- the nation AND the planet -- needed a commited environmentalist in the White House, that time is now . . .

[eridani]

13. Also, if he runs again, I doubt he will let himself be "handled" the way he was in 2000 n/t

[rhett o rick]

25. Noone should be "handled" the way he and Kerry were. It is time to kick out

the political advisor's.

[rhett o rick]

24. I am with you 100%. I like your Chief Seattle quote also. nm

[Canuckistanian]

15. They were aluminum tubes, not plastic pipes

This was another product of Doug Feith's OSP, Bullshit Division...

August 17, 2001

A team of scientists at the Energy Department revisits the question of the aluminum tubes after US intelligence intercepts a shipment. They raise significant doubts in a "Technical Intelligence Note." The New York Times later summarizes: "First, in size and material, the tubes were very different from those Iraq had used in its centrifuge prototypes before the first Gulf War. Those models used tubes that were nearly twice as wide and made of exotic materials that performed far better than aluminum…. Their walls were three times too thick for 'favorable use' in a centrifuge…. They were also anodized, meaning they had a special coating to protect them from weather. Anodized tubes, the team pointed out, are 'not consistent' with a uranium centrifuge because the coating can produce bad reactions with uranium gas. In other words, chosen to forsake years of promising centrifuge work and instead start from scratch, with inferior material built to less-than-optimal dimensions."

Posted on 08/17/01 at 12:40 PM

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/archives/2001/08/august_17_2001.html

[rhett o rick]

17. Over 600,000 Iraqi's have been killed because they had some kinda

tubes.

[Canuckistanian]

20. The tubes were just an excuse

Although not a single news outlet EVER ATTEMPTED to debunk this or several other claims made at the time.

[Le Taz Hot]

16. Sure there was information.

It went something like this: "If you do not vote 'yes' on the IWR you will be seen as politically weak on terror." Translation: I was advised it was good for my political career.

[rhett o rick]

19. BINGO. nm

[GreenZoneLT]

18. None of the above

The justification for a ground invasion was that we were already engaged in a low-grade war with Iraq (featuringing frequent air-to-ground combat for the previous 12 years) against a brutal fascist dictator who was causing the deaths of tens of thousands of his own people each year, mainly by refusing to comply with UN resolutions passed in 1991.

One strain of centrist thought was, "Well, this is going to suck, but it's better than letting things drag on until the Russians and French unilaterally drop sanctions." And in terms of Iraqi civilian casualties, that was true through 2004. Things did get better in the short run in parts of Iraq, despite our lacking sufficient troops to impose security in much of the country.

What we didn't know then was that we were going to occupy the country without an occupation plan, using the Rumsfeld Bare Minimum Doctrine number of troops, perfectly designed to cause hostility without being able to respond to it.

The other thing we didn't know was why, if Saddam had no WMDs, he wouldn't just PROVE it. The answer was, we have since learned, that he was more afraid of Turkey, Iran and his own potentially rebellious populace knowing he DIDN'T have them than he was afraid of us. Yet another stellar decision from the man who brought us the invasions of Iran and Kuwait. Rummie has nothing on Saddam when it comes to being a fucked-up military mind.

[rhett o rick]

22. What I hear you saying: We needed to conquer Iraq before the

French or Russians. And Congress, including some democrats currently running for President, didn't bother to ask Bush if he had an occupation plan. They trusted Bush and Rumsfelt.

I do believe Saddam was a brutal fascist dictator. One that this Country paid for and was perfectly happy with while he was killing Shia and Kurdish Sunni's. But somewhere along the road he stopped being the Bush family puppet. Furthermore, at the time of the invasion, he was not the worst dictator in the World.

[GreenZoneLT]

28. Nobody needed to conquer Iraq

We just wanted an Iraqi in charge who wasn't such a mindless twit. U.S. support for Saddam ended when he started stepping outside his country, and he gave every inclination that he was gonna get right back to that as soon as the U.N. stepped off his neck. Which the Russians and French were desperate to do, in order to make a bunch of money selling him oil extraction gear and weapons.

Who was a worse dictator in 2003? I can think of only Kim Jong Il, who is an impossible military nut to crack unless you're willing to write off the death of a million South Koreans and wreck the economy of a major trading partner for a few years (and that was BEFORE he went nuclear). Saddam was probably No. 2, and was the only one we were a) currently at war with and b) easy to defeat (his conventional army, that is). If we'd listened to Colin Powell, we'd have driven right back out of Iraq the way we came after we caught him, with a hearty, "Good luck with that, y'all."

This, no doubt, would have led to a major civil war with regional players jumping in. So, overall, Bush 41's ambiguous "ending" of Gulf War I seems in hindsight to be wiser than many thought a few years ago.

[Mass]

21. Kerry did not support invading Iraq. He said so several times

between October 2002 and March 2003. He said so several times since.

However, his vote was still an error because it included trusting Bush to do the right thing, and this was an error.

I would guess Clinton and Cantwell did the same calculation and the same error.

[rhett o rick]

23. Hard for me to believe that Georgie fooled Kerry, Clinton, Cantwell and

the rest. I believe their advisor's told them that they would look unpatriotic not to give GWB full power to destroy Iraq. I further believe this horrible blunder will completely reshape the middle east.

[rhett o rick]

26. Congress gave Bushco a blank check and so far it has cost us dearly. nm

[GreenArrow]

29. no, there wasn't

Those who voted for it were either idiots, or monstruously cynical -- "in order to make an omelette, you have to break a few eggs". Those eggs are covered in blood, just like their hands.