Knowing that they were lied to, is it fair to condemn Dems for voting for the IWR?

[Skip Intro]

Many Dems have said they were misled by the regime into voting for the IRW resolution. This vote is frequently used as the damning action by any Dem. Voted for it, blood on your hands. But many Dems say they were led to believe that the IWR was a tool to be used, as promised by the bush regime, to conduct powerful diplomacy. Some have apologized for their vote. Some have said they wouldn't have voted the same way. There is little doubt the regime lies, twists arms, blackmails - anyone doubt it? So, reading what just one congressman recounted, and knowing the effort to extract support went to all lengths, it should be asked - what is fair, as far as holding that vote as a litmus test for who is and is not acceptable.

--------------------------------

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2007/09/lies-swayed-con.html

Lies Swayed Congressman to Support the War
Democratic Congressman Paul Kanjorski explains how lies were used to convince him to vote to authorize the Iraq war:

Kanjorski: Millions of people coming to the Poconos, by Howard Frank: ...The highlight of the night for many was the explanation he gave for his vote on the Iraq war in 2002.

"We were told a lot of things that were incorrect or inaccurate" he said.

Kanjorski described how, prior to the vote, he and several other representatives were ushered into the Roosevelt Room in the White House and given a 90-minute, highly classified briefing by then National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and CIA Director George Tenant.

"They told us all kind of things. That we were under a threat and their information was as complete as possible and they (Iraq) had weapons of mass destruction" he said.

Kanjorski was not terribly impressed with the briefing. Within two hours he received a call from the White House, asking if he had any further questions. Kanjorski said he that to enter into a preemptive war, he had to be convinced the threat is imminent. And he wasn't convinced.

So he was asked to return for another briefing the next morning.

In it, he was shown large pictures of a plane "that looked like a mosquito." Kanjorski was told these were called UAVs - unmanned aeronautical vehicles, the highest black-box weapons we have, and they (the Iraqis) have 1,000 of them, and they can deliver weapons of mass destruction. That included a plane that could spray chemical and biological materials.

He was told the intelligence agency had incontrovertible evidence of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. "I'm a lawyer" he said. "Use the phrase 'incontrovertible evidence' and you've got my attention. It was impressive."

That presentation swayed him. But, he added, "the Iraqis never had one damned weapon."

"There was no way they ever took those pictures in Iraq," he said, referring to the UAVs. ... "We invaded a sovereign nation based on a lie."

Here's another report indicating he was also told 250 U.S. cities were in danger:

Kanjorski faces public, explains his Iraq vote, by Bill O'Boyle, Times Leader: ...Kanjorski walked into the fire hall at 7:05 p.m. and immediately took off his suit jacket.

"I'm sure it will get hot in here, especially when you start to yell at me," he joked. "œHow many of you are mad or angry? I am too. I can not morally justify the pre-emptive invasion of another country unless the U.S. is in imminent danger of being attacked. We got there under false pretenses and we have stayed there."

Kanjorski took the time to tell the people how he was convinced to support the war effort back in 2002. He said he was called to a meeting at the White House along with several other U.S. representatives and senators.

He said he left the meeting unsure of how he would vote, and he told the White House he was leaning toward voting against the war. "I then was invited to return to the White House the next day," Kanjorski said.

He said the group was shown photographs of stored weapons of mass destruction. He said he saw photos of UAVs - Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - which are used to transport chemicals and/or hydrogen bombs. He said he was told that the Iraqis had a thousand of these and they were intending to bring them into the U.S. via both coasts, and more than 250 U.S. cities were to be targeted. "None of the information was true," Kanjorski said. ...

-------------------------------------

on edit, from the Blumenthal piece:

----------------------

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal

Sep. 06, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.
-----------------------

[EFerrari]

1. Yes, it is. If I knew it was bullshit, how could they not?

That was a political calculation, not a "misunderstanding". Please.

[Capn Sunshine]

4. EXACTLY

a significant part of the world's population called bullshit on the Iraq occupation. The evidence was there. What was also there was a craven fear that a "NO" vote would be used against them.

[EFerrari]

17. Good to read you, Sir.

:)

[pnwmom]

31. You were not given access to classified information,

as they thought they were. The "it" that you were told wasn't the same information that they were being (falsely) told.

[EFerrari]

34. The declassified NIE is FULL of qualifiers -- that's the "it"

they got. It was a POS. And that matches the ever shifting reasons for going in, even in the run up. And it matched the full access that Saddam gave the IAEA.

And remember those extremists, Hans Blix and Scott Ritter? They knew BushCo was full of it and they were publicly against the invasion. If I had access to their opinion, surely Congress did.

There was a meme going around on the eve of the invasion: diplomacy has failed. What "diplomacy"? There was no serious attempt ON OUR SIDE at diplomacy. And it wasn't only BushCo repeating it, it was members of both houses, Republicans and Democrats.

Kabuki.

[pnwmom]

63. Did you read the OP?

They were given presentations beyond the NIE.

From the OP:
"Kanjorski was not terribly impressed with the briefing. Within two hours he received a call from the White House, asking if he had any further questions. Kanjorski said he that to enter into a preemptive war, he had to be convinced the threat is imminent. And he wasn't convinced.

So he was asked to return for another briefing the next morning.

In it, he was shown large pictures of a plane "that looked like a mosquito." Kanjorski was told these were called UAVs - unmanned aeronautical vehicles, the highest black-box weapons we have, and they (the Iraqis) have 1,000 of them, and they can deliver weapons of mass destruction. That included a plane that could spray chemical and biological materials.

He was told the intelligence agency had incontrovertible evidence of chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. "I'm a lawyer" he said. "Use the phrase 'incontrovertible evidence' and you've got my attention. It was impressive."

That presentation swayed him. But, he added, "the Iraqis never had one damned weapon."

"There was no way they ever took those pictures in Iraq," he said, referring to the UAVs. ... "We invaded a sovereign nation based on a lie."

[EFerrari]

75. Yes, I did. I think I answered this part of your question down thread.

The claims made about the Iraqi capability were on their face ridiculous after we'd been beating up on them for the last 20 years or so.

[Hersheygirl]

45. That is pure bull hockey.

When Dennis Kucinch was on the Ed Shultz show the other day, Ed asked him about that and he said he read the reports and did the research. It was all out the there for anyone to find out. All they had to do was their job and ask questions and do the necessary research. I do not buy that 'they were misled by the information they were shown.' They were just too lazy.

There were peoples lives at stake and they couldn't even take the time to do their jobs. What a pitiful excuse.

[pnwmom]

64. Kucinich did not go to all the briefings. Only certain members

of Committees went to the briefings.

[LWolf]

99. Apparently, there was enough information available

outside the briefings for many to know better.

[Totally Committed]

44. I couldn't agree more... A political calculation, not a 'misunderstanding' at all!

And look what that political calculation has brought us!

And, to those who insist their vote WAS a misunderstanding, or a mistake, this I say: Then you are too stupid to be in elected office, and should resign immediately.

There should be no quarter given for this. None.

TC

[bread_and_roses]

46. exactly. and if they KNOW they were lied to, whre are the hearings? impeachment?

There was plenty of evidence that the illegitimate squatter in the WH was lying - I read it, millions around the world knew it. There was also plenty of expert opinion outside the Beltway that an Iraq invasion would likely result in exactly the horror that has indeed transpired.

Apologize? What good is an apology to the many hundreds of thousands dead, to the world for destroying civilizations earliest history, to the world for increasing the risk of terrorism by orders of magnitude, to our citizens for bankrupting their future and starving every public good to feed the endless maw of their war machine, to the children dismembered and incinerated by our attacks?

Apologize? When, for political expediency they let that twice-over thief and his Junta continue to kill the people of Iraq without accountability?

I don't think so.

[mrgorth]

49. Same here

we can't occupy a muslim country. They should've known.

[Connie_Corleone]

2. The senators who sat on the Intelligence committee and didn't read the NIE

are the ones who should really be ashamed of their vote.

[Skip Intro]

3. Things were omitted from the NIE as well.

searching...


Its in that salon piece by blumenthal

[Skip Intro]

7. "Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002" - no WMD

Salon exclusive: Two former CIA officers say the president squelched top-secret intelligence, and a briefing by George Tenet, months before invading Iraq.
By Sidney Blumenthal

Sep. 06, 2007 | On Sept. 18, 2002, CIA director George Tenet briefed President Bush in the Oval Office on top-secret intelligence that Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction, according to two former senior CIA officers. Bush dismissed as worthless this information from the Iraqi foreign minister, a member of Saddam's inner circle, although it turned out to be accurate in every detail. Tenet never brought it up again.

Nor was the intelligence included in the National Intelligence Estimate of October 2002, which stated categorically that Iraq possessed WMD. No one in Congress was aware of the secret intelligence that Saddam had no WMD as the House of Representatives and the Senate voted, a week after the submission of the NIE, on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Iraq. The information, moreover, was not circulated within the CIA among those agents involved in operations to prove whether Saddam had WMD.

[FrenchieCat]

16. That's in reference to the "declassified" NIE........

The 90 page "Classified" NIE that those on the Intelligence committee (Edwards) had access to was not "incomplete". Please do more research on this.

nomatrix (1000+ posts) Sat Apr-28-07 02:43 PM
Response to Original message
100. Read this..... then make your opinion
Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_Report_of_Pre-war_I...

At the end of phase one of the report you'll find comments by the committee.

Senators Rockefeller, Levin, and Durbin

"Senators John D. Rockefeller (D-WV) (the Committee's vice-chairman), Carl Levin (D-MI), and Richard Durbin (D-IL), used their additional view to say that the report painted an incomplete picture, because the Committee had put off until phase two of the investigation the key question of "how intelligence on Iraq was used or misused by Administration officials in public statements and reports." Because of this, they said, "the Committee’s phase one report fails to fully explain the environment of intense pressure in which Intelligence Community officials were asked to render judgments on matters relating to Iraq when policy officials had already forcefully stated their own conclusions in public."

Sen.Roberts (R) delayed the release of phase II until Sept. 2006


Two volumes of the phase II report were released on September 8, 2006: "Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments" and "The Use by the Intelligence Community of Information Provided by the Iraqi National Congress." The conclusions of these reports were that there was no prewar evidence that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction and there was no evidence that Saddam had links to al-Qaeda.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=775121&mesg_id=778964

LSK (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-27-07 10:05 PM
Original message
"There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon" - Dick Durbin 10/10/02
Mr. DURBIN . I thank the Senator for his courtesy. When we disagree, he is always courteous in his treatment and fair on the floor of the Senate.

I might say to my friend from Connecticut, it is rare we disagree. I am sorry this is one of those cases. But I would pose a question, if he wants to answer it--without yielding the floor.

Do you believe that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States today?

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend. I agree it is rare we disagree, so I do so with respect.

That is my point. I believe the threat is real. The weapons of mass destruction threat is real. Whether it is imminent or not, I do not know.

As I said, the analogy that comes to mind is of a bomb on a timer. I don't know whether the timer is set to go off in a day or a year. But because the danger is so real, I don't want to establish the standard of imminence before the United Nations or the President of the United States can act to eliminate the danger.

Mr. DURBIN . I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I think it is an honest answer. But let me tell you, I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge.

If you want to talk about threats to the United States, let me quickly add to that list North Korea. Currently, North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has missiles that can deliver that nuclear weapon to many countries that we consider our friends and allies in their region.

Iran may not have a nuclear weapon today but could be further along than Iraq is at this moment. There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon.

We do not trust Syria because it is a harbor for some 12 or 15 different terrorist organizations in Damascus, and we certainly do not trust Libya because of our fear of weapons of mass destruction.

So now of all the countries I have listed, Iraq is one of them for sure. But I have given you five or six countries which, under this resolution's logic and under this President's new foreign policy, we should be considering invading. Which one and when?

Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory.

It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?

The words ``imminent threat'' have been used throughout the history of the United States. One of the first people to articulate that was a man who served on the floor of this Chamber, Daniel Webster, who talked about anticipatory self-defense, recognized way back in time, in the 19th century. What we are saying today is those rules don't work anymore; we are going to change them.

From Thomas.gov, Senate Floor, October 10, 2002
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=775754&mesg_id=775754

AND THERE WAS ALWAYS THE LEVIN AMENDMENT THAT COULD HAVE BEEN VOTED ON, BUT SOMEHOW THOSE WHO VOTED YES ON THE BLANK CHECK VOTED NAY ON THAT AMENDMENT! :crazy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?ex=1189828800&en=e5d37515e83e4c65&ei=5070

[Tellurian]

40. Yes, the Intell Committee was given a redacted version..

Because the original was classified..

[Adelante]

65. No. The Congress at large received the redacted version

The classified version was set up in a room for separate viewing, but few members actually went there and read it. Byrd, for example, was not on the Intelligence Committee, which had ordered and received the classified version, but went to the room and read the classified version, and so did Kennedy.

[bamacrat]

5. Maybe not but it is fair to blast them for continuing to fund the war knowing it was a lie. n/t

[LWolf]

6. Yes. If I, a simple citizen, knew better, they should have.

Excusing an IWR vote because they were stupid enough to believe George Fucking W Bush, or duplicitous enough to pretend that they did in order to pander to mass hysteria, is a slap in the face to those elected Democrats who knew better, said so, and did their job when it counted.

[pnwmom]

32. We, as simple citizens, weren't invited to watch

special top secret intelligence briefings from the CIA. We, as simple citizens, weren't told that 250 American cities were at risk from these top secret weapons. We don't know how we would have reacted if we had been in the Senators' shoes. We can only hope that we wouldn't have fallen for the lies.

[EFerrari]

35. The thing is, we'd been bombing Iraq for more than a decade

and their infrastructure was in tatters from sanctions. It is simply incredible that they had the capacity to bomb even one American city. Saddam was writing AN OPERA at the time Junior said he was preparing to attack us. Maybe it was going to be a really bad opera.

[greatauntoftriplets]

84. Exactly right.

And Bill Clinton bombed Iraq, more than once.

[Ignis]

90. Beautifully stated!

At the very least, it was the SWORN DUTY of our Democratic reps/senators to approach the IWR propaganda pitch with a LOT of skepticism, and to demand far more investigation and verification of the Admin's wild claims before handing Dim Son a blank check.

Due diligence? Hello? :shrug:

[LWolf]

47. Yet still, I knew better than to trust GWB.

So did tens of thousands of citizens across the nation.

So did 23 Senators, all Democrats, including my then-Senator Boxer and my now-Senator Wyden.

None of whom are currently running for president.

So did 133 members of the House of Representatives, 126 of them Democrats.

Including one current primary candidate.

[pnwmom]

62. They weren't necessarily trusting him.

They were trusting the CIA professionals who gave them the presentations -- professionals who USED to be nonpartisan.

[redqueen]

67. Weren't other CIA professionals

claiming the information was cherrypicked, even back then?

[EFerrari]

85. Yes, they were. And they were leaking to the media that Unkah Dickhead

was going schoolyard bully on them.

The information was there, was public, for anyone who wanted it. :shrug:

[redqueen]

92. Yup... thought so.

So yeah... NO EXCUSE.

[LWolf]

98. Yet still, there were Senators and Congresspeople,

as well as ordinary citizens, who knew better.

[FrenchieCat]

94. Urh.....and one Republican; Sen. Chaffee.....

who questions the voracity of the argument that there were only two choices; to vote for the Blank Check or not to. He reminds us that there were multiple amemdments that would have, if nothing else, slowed this shit down, and would have the very least put some restrictions on the Blank check that authorized war.

See here:
The Senate’s Forgotten Iraq Choice
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinion/01chafee.html?ex=1189915200&en=b5cf1b13d3f0f388&ei=5070

[LWolf]

97. Kudos to him

for having the courage to be the lone Republican to take this stand.

[LWolf]

48. Yet still, I knew better than to trust George W Bush

at the wheel of the U.S. military machine.


So did tens of thousands of citizens across the nation.

So did 23 Senators, all Democrats, including my then-Senator Boxer and my now-Senator Wyden.

None of whom are currently running for president.

So did 133 members of the House of Representatives, 126 of them Democrats.

Including one current primary candidate.

[Dawgs]

55. "Including one current primary candidate."

And one Senator who wasn't in Congress in 2002/2003 - now a Presidential candidate.

[LWolf]

96. Yes.

The same Senator who has voted repeatedly, until declaring himself a candidate for president, to enable the war to continue by funding it.

[Tellurian]

42. Rather than on your say so. Show us your proof.

[LWolf]

100. Proof that I knew better?

What would you like?

An affidavit sworn to in front of a judge from acquaintances, swearing that I told them that Bush was using 9/11 to undermine the balance of power, undermine our constitution, and accomplish the action in Iraq clearly outlined in the PNAC?

A copy of a letter written to my reps when it was on the floor, pointing out that giving GWB the authority to move in Iraq was turning the wolves loose among the sheep?

Perhaps you could comb through DU archives from that time period to find some of my posts.

[superkia]

8. Always read anything before you sign your life away! No excuse!

[ShortnFiery]

9. Yes, the largest anti-war protests in the history of The World were before the Iraqi War

We all knew that Dear Leader had a hard-on to invade Iraq. Those Congresspersons who voted for the IWR OVERTLY choose their careers over their moral judgment. They KNEW it was B.S. but were *afraid* that it just may lose them votes if her Chimperor somehow reigned supreme.

IMO, all Democrats who voted for the IWR should be unseated by their very next anti-war democratic challenger.

[AtomicKitten]

10. Why, yes, I do believe it is.

Both Edwards and Hillary neglected to read the NIE, voting on an issue of war purposely uninformed - although one would have to have been unconscious to not know precisely what Junior would do with the power voluntarily abdicated by the Congress to declare war - and they both voted with their own political behinds foremost in mind.

Edwards in particular (and Diane Feinstein) sat on the Intelligence Committee has zero credibility after rallying so convincingly for the war, his Op-Ed was posted on the State Department's website. A thousand apologies can't erase that image.

[DemBones DemBones]

21. You said it! They have no real excuse. nt

[BeyondGeography]

11. Deep down, they all knew it was horseshit

"You don't roll a product out in August," said Andrew Card about the run-up to IWR, and that's what this always was, a trumped-up, over-marketed bill of goods designed to satisfy neocon wet dreams and the Boy King's messiah complex. Anyone who couldn't tell that Cheny and Rice were exaggrating this threat and that Child Monster was determined to go to war was dead from the neck up. After IWR, about 60% of the public said war was inevitable, so even the average Murkan knew which way this was going.

It's no accident that all of the Senators who wound up running for President, except Graham, voted for this. They all feared being labelled weak-on-defense, weak-kneed liberals. Instead, they wound up weak-on-Bush, calculating liberals. Congratulations.

[harun]

87. I agree, the people who went along with it did so because

they (just like the WH) thought it would be an easy, popular war.

Before the invasion I told people for it that the one thing you can be certain of in any conflict like this is that it isn't going to turn out the way you expect it will. May be better, may be worse but it better be worth it either way. Majority agrees now it wasn't worth it. A whole lot of us back then tried to articulate why it wasn't worth it. No one listened.

We had all sorts of Constitutional and procedural safe guards in place to protect ourselves from making this mistake and they were all ignored and those people who made the mistake know it.

I just can't believe more Repub's aren't jumping ship on the lies, fessing up to them, and trying to right their sinking ship. I guess when almost the entire Foreign Policy of the United States is based on lies, these new lies aren't that big of a deal to politicians.

[LittleClarkie]

12. If yes, then do they get redemption for an apology?

Which some have given, and some have not?

[Garbo 2004]

13. How many read the NIE? And why didn't they prior to voting for the IWR?

The full NIE did not present a "slam dunk" case.

Political interests/aspirations trumped national interest.

The IWR was the Gulf of Tonkin resolution for the 21st Century.

[zulchzulu]

14. I'd say that nearly all the votes for the IWR were for political expediency

Ferchrissakes, my dog knew Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz were lying. We knew it was about oil. We knew it was about Bush wanting to get back at Saddam for his daddy. There were millions of people in the streets worldwide...a true cross section of people... who knew it was a hoax.

Anyone who is running for President in 2008 who voted for the IWR should not get ANY votes. They either knew it was BS and still voted or they don't have a damn clue about leadership and the ability to make a smart decision when the time is toughest to make a decision that might be deemed unpopular at the time.

Those that voted for the IWR knew why they voted for it...they balanced political expediency as well as didn't have the courage to face being called "anti-American" or "against the military" at the time. Blood is indeed on their hands. They can try to apologize or make excuses about it, but it's too late for that. Like a murderer that gets caught, apologizing for the crime is too late. It's time to face the music.

Are we to trust those that were fooled by the neocons? What makes us think it wouldn't happen again...after all, most people can see past the lies.

[AlGore-08.com]

15. Yes. Besides what others have said, Smirk had been jerking them around for nearly 2 years

Even if they had slept walked through their lives up to January 21, 2001 they all had plenty of reasons to be extremely cautious about trusting Team Smirk for anything - - his handling of the California energy crisis, Cheney's super secret energy task force, dumping bills on Congress a few minutes before a vote with crucial pages missing, etc., etc., etc.

As they say in Tennessee: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice... ah... fool me twice, and... ah... we won’t get fooled again."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

18. Hundreds of thousands of protesters around the country knew it was lies

They rang their Congresscritters' phones off the hook and clogged their fax machines and e-mail inboxes.

How can the Congresscritters have been dumb enough to believe the Bushboy about ANYTHING?

No, they knew it was all lies, and they were chicken, because the Bushies told them that the American people would reject them if they voted against the IWR.

So they ignored the phone calls, faxes, and e-mails begging them to vote against the IWR and voted to support Bush.

Once again, they took their base for granted.

Of all the Senators up for re-election that year, only Paul Wellstone voted against the IWR, and his ratings went UP after that happened. He was the only one who cared more about the truth than about his own political future, and even he half-believed the Bushies' propaganda, according to one of the Minnesota DUers who spoke with Sheila Wellstone.

[TankLV]

19. Not "hundreds of thousands" - try MILLIONS...

It was "hundreds of thousands" in singular cities alone - the aggregate was MILLIONS...

[Lydia Leftcoast]

26. I just recall that it was 30,000 in Portland, or 10% of the population, which

is a HUGE turnout for a protest in the U.S.

Fortunately for their political fortunes, all the Democrats in Oregon were against the Iraq War, especially Peter DeFazio and Earl Blumenauer.

[Greyhound]

20. Yes, and it is unforgivable.

As for the Presidential candidates, there are only two possibilities,

They really didn't know and are therefore far too stupid to be the President, or

they did, in fact, know and are far too corrupt to be trusted to be President.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. You are right: they are either too stupid or too corrupt

if they voted for IWR.

Apologies? Apologies are worthless when so many have died because you and your cohorts were too stupid or too corrupt to say "No,this is wrong."

[LWolf]

101. EXACTLY my point. Thank you. n/t

[dogman]

22. Yes, and where are the investigations into the lies?

There was enough testimony to cause doubt. They should have spent more time looking at the information and less time looking at the polls. If they claim they were told lies, why are they not demanding the truth now?

[slipslidingaway]

25. Exactly!!! n/t

[Skip Intro]

27. Yes! There should be investigations into the LIES that took us into Iraq.

Yes. Where are they? That is a big problem. The debate seems to have shifted to poor planning for the after-invasion, yet the invasion is where the real crimes are.

I want those investigations. I want trials. I want sentences. I want accountablility.

[FrenchieCat]

29. No......even the IWR voting Democratic candidates will tell you to run along.....

nothing to see back there....

all that counts is what is being said right this minute, dammit! :sarcasm:

[slipslidingaway]

24. Yes, some questioned the lies and read everything

available before giving Bush the power he needed to invade Iraq, others did not.


This is more than a question on just this vote, it is about the type of person we want to make the next decisions. Should we promote someone who did not look at everything before casting a vote that has cost our nation dearly now and in the future? Do we really want to lower the bar!



http://www.dlc.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=106&subid=122&contentid=250935

"Remarks By Sen. John Edwards to the Center for Strategic and International Studies

This week, the U.S. Senate will have an historic debate on the most difficult decision a country ever makes: whether to send American soldiers into harm's way to defend our nation. The President will address these issues in his speech tonight.

My position is very clear: The time has come for decisive action to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I am a co-sponsor of the bipartisan resolution we're currently considering."


Vote "NO'' On Iraq War Resolution US
Statement by Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), October 3, 2002

http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2002/10/03_kucinich_vote-no.htm


"The American people deserve to know that the key issue here is that there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States of America. I will repeat: there is no proof that Iraq represents an imminent or immediate threat to the United States. A continuing threat does not constitute a sufficient cause for war. The administration has refused to provide the Congress with credible evidence that proves that Iraq is a serious threat to the United States and that it is continuing to possess and develop chemical and biological and nuclear weapons.

Furthermore, there is no credible evidence connecting Iraq to al Qaeda and 9-11, and yet there are people who want to bomb Iraq in reprisal for 9-11."


Edited a paragraph to make sense :crazy:

[sampsonblk]

28. Yes. We knew, then they should have known also.

[Progressive Friend]

30. The lies were obvious lies, they have no excuse

[killbotfactory]

33. Even if they did believe the lies and voted for the IWR

There were still a few more months before Bush invaded. In those months the UN inspectors basically blew apart the case for war, and in those months almost none of the people who voted for the IWR objected to Bush cutting short inspections and rushing into war.

The US was required to give the UN inspectors information so that they could do their job, almost everything Bush gave them turned out to be complete horseshit, including the Niger memo. For the people who voted for the IWR, that should have clued them in about how much bullshit Bush had fed them. The fact that it phased almost no one who voted for the IWR, and they all went on to support it, means that they either agreed with the wars true aims, or they thought the war would be a success and didn't want to take the political hit that would come with opposing it. Either way I wouldn't trust them with the Presidency.

[oasis]

36. "...bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely

and therefore, war, less likely"---HRC.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

68. Ah, yes, a classic...

steaming pile of triangulated bullshit from Hillary Clinton, that enabled her to vote FOR the war but claim she wasn't giving Bush authority to go to war just back to the UN with a "strong hand". :D

It's really just a rif on "it depends on what the definition of 'is' is" -- she learned well from her husband.

And one of the reasons I despise her.

[redqueen]

69. What kind of success? Success getting the sanction? Another step towards invasion?

:wtf:

[cleveramerican]

37. Those who voted for it will carry that burden forever.

There are things you say and do that you can never take back.

[elizm]

38. No excuse for poor judgment. nt

[MadHound]

39. So let's see what the choice is here. Either they were stupid enough to be fooled by Bush

Or they decided to enable his illegal, immoral war out of pure political considerations. Neither scenario looks very good. The former means that they're really too stupid to hold the highest office in the land, the second means that they are heartless monsters, playing politics with peoples' lives, allowing wholesale death and destruction for their own personal gain.

Not good, not good. This is why I support Kucinich,he's been on the right side of the issues all along. Gee, smart and compassionate, two traits sadly lacking in politics these days.

[Perry Logan]

41. Blaming the Dems for their vote on the war helps the administration get DOUBLE MILEAGE from its lie!

What a brilliant strategy.

People who attack the Democrats for their vote on the war are playing into the Republicans' hands, helping further damage the Democratic Party. And they're doing it for free.

A lot of liberals get finessed by Republicans--the anti-Hillarites for example, who parrot Republican talking points constantly.

[Tellurian]

43. The Far Left and Naderites like the sound of their own voices

(as if it matters 5 yrs later) are Obama supporters. The thing IS, Obama is unelectable.

[bread_and_roses]

50. "as if it matters" ? Iraqis are still dying, Americans are still dying. I call that "matters."

And if we who hold those votes accountable are "far left" we seem to be roughly in the majority, given Congress's ratings in the polls. Right down there with pResident Codpiece.

[Tellurian]

54. No sh*tt, Dick Tracy.. Voting for Kucinich will stop the War How?

He's unelectable. His vote sets the stage for another Republican presidency!

[bread_and_roses]

57. eh? wot? talk about a non-sequitur

I don't know what you're going on about, with Obama and DK, neither of whom I mentioned.

[Dawgs]

53. "Obama is unelectable."

Is this the best you can do?

You can't defend the points in this thread so you make a snide remark about Obama to make yourself feel better. How do the Hillary supporters look at themselves in the mirror after writing stuff like this?

[Tellurian]

56. Obama's negatives are rising and his poll numbers are flailing..

Better he should stay in the Senate and grow some gravitas.

[SOS]

70. So Lincoln Chafee and Jim Jeffords are "Far Left"?

Interesting.

All Dems and rational Republicans should have voted no.

Bush was going anyway. Troops and materiel were moving to the Gulf in the Spring of 2002.

Voting no would have forced to Bush to destroy the wrong country using a National Security Directive.

Same dismal outcome, but without giving Bush a bludgeon to hammer us with.

[EFerrari]

76. Yes, we do. And we will not be silent.

:)

[Major Hogwash]

51. These are really good articles.

That Salon piece has been totally ignored by the MSM.

Olbermann hasn't even mentioned it.
And we know he can read.

[Ethelk2044]

52. Yes, they should have done more to investigated more

I hold all of them who voted to authorize the war responsible. Those who read the report did not vote for the authorization.

[MannyGoldstein]

58. Most Democrats Voted AGAINST It - Were They Wrong?

Seems to me that if most Dems knew enough to vote against it, the rest also had ample opportunity to do the same.

[OwnedByFerrets]

59. IF that is true, then I am much smarter than those who voted

for this shit. Don't give me the "i was lied to" line. Its more full of holes than the reasons we are in Iraq. They voted for it for one reason and its the same reason we are still there. They have no backbone and do what is politically expedient.

[blm]

60. IWR wasn't the endall - it was AFTER weapon inspectors were proving force was NOT

necessary THEN the senators and congress were obliged to come forward and SAY SO and oppose the invasion, especially if they supported the IWR specifically FOR the weapon inspections.

[Adelante]

61. A faulty question

The AMERICAN PEOPLE were lied to, not the Congress, not exactly. There are those who found it more convenient to believe than to question. But the truth was in the classified NIE. Bob Graham saw it. Dick Durbin saw it. Carl Levin saw it. Robert Byrd saw it. Dennis Kucinich saw it. And others. The administration did not make their case for war and the IWR should never have been voted out of the Intelligence Committee, never mind out of Congress.

The full classified NIE was ordered by the Intelligence Committee, received by the Intelligence Committee, and placed by the Intelligence Committee in a room for any member of Congress to visit and read at their convenience over a period of eight days prior to the vote. The NIE included the raw intelligence data. The NIE included arguments that went against the administration's claims.

The abbreviated so-called "summary" NIE, which was comprised only of administration arguments, was also ordered by the Intelligence Committee. The Intelligence Committee asked for a declassified version of the original NIE, the one in the locked room, in order that Congress members could refer to it in public in explaining to the AMERICAN PEOPLE their justifications for voting how they would, for or against.

However, in the event, the summary NIE was not a declassified version of the NIE; it was an entirely different document containing only the administration's case for war.

Anyone in Congress who read only the summary NIE allowed themselves to be lied to by not exerting themselves to go to the locked room and read the full NIE. If they read only the summary NIE they have only themselves to blame if they feel they were misled by it. It is the AMERICAN PEOPLE who were victimized by the Bush administration and failed by those in Congress who voted for the IWR.

If holding public officials accountable is "condemning" our own candidates, should they not be condemned? Isn't it our duty as citizens to condemn rather than reward the biggest foreign policy failure in American history?

By the way, it was the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee Bob Graham who told the Congress "Blood is going to be on your hands" as he desperately sought to convince them to vote NO on the IWR.

“Friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form,” Sen. Graham reports stating on the floor of the Senate in October 2002.

“We are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States.” He warned: “Blood is going to be on your hands”

I am mindful that there are mitigations, weights and measures that can be applied to the IWR votes. Did they vote yes to the IWR but fully oppose the occupation as Kerry did? Did they vote yes to the IWR but also yes to an alternative such as the Byrd amendment to limit the authorization to one year as Clinton did? Did they vote yes to the Durbin amendment limiting the authority to imminent threat as Dodd did? Or the Levin amendment which called for a new IWR vote once Bush had a UN resolution before taking military action and a 60-day reporting requirement to Congress. Did they vote YES to any or all of these? Or none of them?

Were they on the Senate Intelligence Committee?

Former CIA Director Kerr said in 2004 pre-war intelligence hearings:

If I were a Senator not on the oversight committee, I’d say you guys failed. What happened here? Why didn’t you know more about this — you, the Senate Select Committee — which are our eyes and ears on intelligence? What did you do to deal with the issue? What did you do to systematically look and see if the resources were appropriate or the subjects were appropriate? …I’m just saying you have an obligation there too.

Yes, the Intelligence Committee had an obligation and failed to meet it, despite heroic efforts by Graham, Durbin and Levin. Individual members of Congress also had an obligation and failed to meet it if they did not read the full NIE made available to them by the Intelligence Committee.

Members of the Intelligence Committee who:

1. did not read the full NIE (there was only one who did not)

2. co-sponsored the IWR with Lieberman

3. voted against each and every mitigating amendment to the IWR

4. hawked the war in op-eds and speeches and interviews

5. linked Saddam to 9/11

6. apologized only once the truth was coming out about the pre-war intelligence

Well, there was only one of those, one primary candidate who is guilty of all of those things. He thinks he should be rewarded with the presidency. I think he should be condemned.

I am personally not willing to vote for any Democratic primary candidate who voted YES to the IWR, although I will vote for the nominee in the GE. It's my small protest and may mean little in the scheme of things, but holding candidates accountable for the part they played in Bush's war is the least I can do for the maimed, the dead, and the dying, and the nation they're dying for.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

66. I might buy that BULLSHIT...

excuse -- and that is exactly what it is, an attempt to make excuses for a shitty vote -- that they were "lied to" and "fooled" because of it, if 22 Democrats and one Independent hadn't been able to see through the "lies" and have the knowledge/balls to vote against that piece of shit legislation.

What makes those folks so special? Are they all Mensa members? Where they all peaceniks who would rather make love not war? Where they all actually Hussein "plants" who were trying to protect their true Master from the wraith of the US?

Let's face it. Democrats voted for that crap for one of the following reasons:

a) they were truly stupid (and have no business in politics)
b) they were afraid of looking like pussies and having the GOP use their vote against them in a future election
c) they were thinking of running for President and looking "soft on terrorism"
c) they were war-mongering bastards who have a warped view of what American foriegn policy should look like

Anyway you cut it -- they were dead wrong. All of them. And that vote should be considered their worst moment in office.

[bunkerbuster1]

71. I just want someone to say what I've owned up to

which, in a nutshell, is this.

I supported the Iraq invasion.

I supported it even though I thought Bush & Co. were liars, and had lied about the WMD threat (which had already been discounted by the centrist New Republic). I supported it even though I found the neocon habit of conflating Iraq with 9/11 to be disgusting.

I supported it because of a simple reason: I thought our policies had brought a lot of suffering to the Iraqi citizens, and that invading quickly, taking out Saddam and installing a puppet government, as nasty a business as that is, would be preferable to continue to bleed the country dry by sanctions.

I thought our military and intelligence community had done their homework prior to invasion. I figured it would be relatively clean, with little resistance.

I don't own up to this all that often, here at DU, because I'm ashamed at my gullibility and I am not looking to stir up shit unnecessarily. But it's how I felt at the time. I suspect other elected representatives felt that way too; they made a cynical bargain with people they shouldn't have have trusted.

[Adelante]

74. Were you in Congress?

If not, you were not privy to the intelligence, you did not vote and bear no responsibility. You were simply one of the AMERICAN PEOPLE Bush lied to and Congress failed to protect from those lies.

[redqueen]

72. Yes it is fair. They earned the condemnation

either through cowardice or ignorance. And when the matter at hand is war... what more important issue could there be? What other issue requires as much careful deliberation and through research?

No, they have hanged themselves. There is no excuse. All they can do is apologize for their ignorance / cowardice.

[chill_wind]

73. WHAT? They were LIED TO? Then shouldn't they Impeach! Indict! Imprison! Oh wait--

:sarcasm:


War Crimes be damned-- That's pretty much Off The Table.

Four years later, how can we still even be trying to exonerate them?

[renie408]

77. You shouldn't feed the righteously indignant. They might follow you home. n/t

[Hydra]

78. I'm surprised no one brought this up so far

But when you screw up a situation, either intentionally or by mistake, and you feel remorse you:

FIX THE PROBLEM!

An apology is not atonement. You sin, you pay your dues. I refuse to give absolution to people who claim to have been "misled," when they do nothing to correct the situation.

[renie408]

79. Oh, it got brought up. It's just that it has been beat to death so many times

that most people around here leave it alone.

BTW...I assume that when you talk about apologies, you mean Edwards. What kind of atonement from him would mollify you?

[Hydra]

82. I wasn't being specific

anyone who voted for the IWR and wants to be seen as not supportive of it needs to be turning things around.

As for Edwards, I like most of what he's saying, but he lost me at his Herzliya speech. I'm tired of these people making more of a mess in the world, then claiming that it isn't their fault that they voted the way they did.

[renie408]

86. You know, I just don't know.

I wish I knew the best way to handle Iran. My gut tells me the best way is to just get the hell out of the ME. We need to put 500 billion dollars into electric cars and wind turbines and any other alternative form of energy people can think of.

I worry about Iran. I worry that we are either going to make a bad situation worse by being too 'tough'...or make it worse by being so gunshy from the mess that we made in Iraq that we are not 'tough' enough. I worry if America should even be involved in controlling another country's right to nuclear technology. Then I worry that if we aren't doing it...who will?? There are countries out there that I am thinking I don't really want to have nuclear capability.

I just don't know.

[Hydra]

91. Genie is out of the bottle

Until the world decides to deal with its problems without war, there will be nukes. Non-nuke countries get into an exclusive club once they have them. They would be stupid not to.

It's clear that we need to get out of Iraq, though. Most of the "sectarian violence" is being stirred up by us, and if we don't get out soon, those permanent bases will be used for far longer than I think most of us would like.

And you are right- the Era of Oil is over. The powers that be need to get over themselves and start actively moving toward viable energy sources.

[LWolf]

102. One way to prove regret would have been to impeach. n/t

[Cameron27]

80. Yes it's fair,

in any other job, they'd be kicked out on their collective asses for a judgment call like that, certainly not promoted to a higher position.

Imagine if someone had suddenly appeared on DU one day and said "hey guys, before you decide anything, wanna read all the classified intel we've got on Saddam?" Would any one of us ever, ever, even in our wildest delusional state, ever have passed that up? That's what was offered, and that's what was ignored.

[Milo_Bloom]

81. Absolutely 1000% Yes.

Congress is supposed to be a check/balance on the executive branch and there was TONS of counter information available which called into question EVERYTHING they had been told.

Remember Scott Ritter and ACTUAL INSPECTOR who came forth in September to say that Iraq had no WMDs.

Other nations around the world raised significant concerns about the facts being presented. Senators and Congresspeople have greater access than the standard American and should have looked into these issues BEFORE voting for the war.

It is their DUTY to gather as much information as possible before voting on issue like WAR. They failed and for that they should be held accountable.

And of course, let us not forget the Levin Amendment which would have required bush to return to congress and present evidence BEFORE comitting troops. There is no excuse for the democrats failure to support this amendment in force.

[lyonn]

83. Here is my problem with the Dems that were duped

When bush told the U.N. inspectors to leave the country before they had finished their mission there should have been an uproar in the House and Senate - NOTHING WAS SAID

Bush was going to invade immediately, he announced it! Silence, or should I say shock?

Maybe there were those that did speak against it and it was buried.

[killbotfactory]

93. Exactly!

Bush violated pretty much every condition for war laid out in the IWR, and the democrats who voted for the IWR supported it anyway. The UN inspectors couldn't find anything, because the intel we were giving them was complete crap. So Bush cut short inspections, bypassed the UN, and invaded to the applause of those who voted for the IWR.

[FrenchieCat]

95. They all expected it....cause they "knew" exactly what was going on.....

They weren't fooled......but most tried to fool us, and are actually still at it.....about one thing or another. The biggest lie is "if I knew then what I know now" whopper. :eyes:

[CTLawGuy]

88. incontroveritble evidence?

A mere assertion that the evidence they have is "incontrovertible" shouldn't impress anyone, especially a lawyer.

[polichick]

89. If they're dumb enough to be fooled when millions of regular Americans were not...

...they don't deserve to be president. But I don't think they were dumb ~ imo they were playing politics, keeping the majority of their constituents happy. So then the question becomes, "Is someone who would play politics with the lives of our troops and innocent Iraqis qualified to be president?"

[depakid]

103. In 2004, the question was rephrased

If _______ knew now what ______ knew then....

Unfortunately, Kerry gave the worst possible answer, an answer so bad that, even if it's true, sounds so blatantly political, that he voted for a resolution that gave Bush "the right authority to have" so Bush could go to war on his whim. Standing at the Grand Canyon, Kerry then "challenged" Bush on a few real, substantive issues dealing with the war, but the damage was done.

The right wing media had all it needed to start screaming that Kerry would have gone to war, so he agrees with Bush, blah, blah, blah. Kerry apologists were stuck in the bent over positions of either trying to re-focus the question or trying to explain/re-state that Kerry meant he would have voted "yes" for the resolution to give a President the power but he would not have gone to war, which was a fucked-up way to answer, since he was playing Senator and President.

Yes, like a good frog gigger, the Bush campaign shined the flashlight in Kerry's eyes and Kerry froze while Bush speared him with the gig. Now there's nothin' left to do but laugh like little boys at how the frog dances on the gig.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/2004/08/giggin-john-kerry-few-weeks-ago-rude.html

Impressive how many still can't come to grips with that....