Please be honest: Did you support the Iraq war resolution?

[JackRiddler]

First the poll, see below for why I'm posting it.

If you were among the supporters of the IWR (whether or not you were on DU at the time), please be honest about it, and tell us what you think now about the IWR and the new policy of military escalation in Afghanistan.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

1. You left out... I opposed the IWR, I opposed originally going into Afghanistan, and I oppose

the new policies.

[FiveGoodMen]

3. That would have been my choice as well.

[JackRiddler]

4. Sure.

I agree with you, but wish to focus on a more narrow question for this thread.

If you're against all of it, click on OPPOSE/OPPOSE. Thanks.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

6. Don't worry Jack, I did that before commenting. :)

[The Wielding Truth]

12. I opposed both at the time too, but now I feel that the scales have changed.

The taliban is encroaching and has control of parts of Pakistan which has a nuclear arsenal and we are part of a UN mission.

Afghanistan was is an historical trap to get into. Yet, now that we have contributed to it's instability for 8 years by fooling around with Iraq, we must fix and restore some stability in Afghanistan before we leave it to be occupied by more extreme factions.

It, along with everything else ruined by Republican follies must be mended.That will not change by an immediate pull out.

If you remember, even as "winners" of wars, we made remunerations and reestablishments to the countries to which we had part in dismantling. We have to also restore our government, economy,environment,etc. here at home. Oh, I hate what those people have done and still wish to do, or should I say undo, to this country.

[havocmom]

15. Well stated

Thank you

[JackRiddler]

2. WHY I'M POSTING IT.

Excuse me if it feels like 2002 all over again - both in real-life and especially in the contours of the DU debate about Afghanistan.

At the time, a large group of DUers vigorously supported the Oct. 2002 resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. What came to be known as the Iraq war resolution (IWR) got the votes of about half of the Democrats in Congress, notably John Kerry and Hillary Clinton. Many IWR supporters took seriously the danger of WMDs in Iraq. Others may not have believed the Bush propaganda about non-existent weapons, but focused on the need to "do something" against the undeniable evils of the Saddam Hussein regime.

A few years later, with a million Iraqi dead and two million or more refugees in other countries, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who still admitted to having supported the IWR. Many of those who did said in retrospect that they had no choice but to believe that the senators and representatives supporting the Iraq war resolution (IWR) knew better, had access to secret intelligence, or were themselves misled by Bush.

I'm curious how the supporters of the current "Afpak" policy stood on the IWR.

[The Wielding Truth]

23. Every argument that came from the * team was flawed and ridiculous

It was a war of will,I thought, to go get Daddy's enemy in Iraq, and leave the reason for attacking a group of murderous actors in Afghanistan. I was against the bombing of Afghanistan after 9/11. It was not proven to me that we had the right to bomb groups of people perhaps killing innocents ourselves and not take the legal and police action approach to these thugs and criminals who took the extreme measures to kill innocents in NY and DC.

Weren't we the civilized one's? Now we are faced with the same dilemma but from a different place . we committed the mistakes through the crazy Republican myopic view and now we must correct our actions as well as serve with the UN to secure the spread of the nastiness we pushed to spread into a truly nuclearly armed country of Pakistan.

It's a bigger mess and we have the responsibility to try to correct it.If we could do it now through sanctions or political exchanges or elite special forces then I would support those actions in that order, but it is so cancerously spread I doubt it is possible. I am giving our president the authority of his office to make these decisions. If he and the UN cannot make the changes needed to better this situation we will be in worse shape. He has the job to try. I give him that.

[cbdo2007]

5. I don't understand the connection between our views on the Iraq War before

it started and our views on a resolution of the war in Afghanistan after it's already been going now for so many years.

For the record I did not support the Iraq war and have never supported it. I do support the surge in Afghanistan as a means to end the war in Afghanistan.

[mike_c]

8. many here are using the exact same justifications to support the Afghanistan...

...escalation that were used-- and later proved utterly bankrupt-- to justify support for the IWR. "I trust the president/democratic leaders/congress/whatever to know more than I do, and if they support the war, it must be OK."

[JackRiddler]

9. Maybe there is none.

Both of these policies were sold to the people in a big way from the top. Both proposals use the same two primary justifications of removing a potential danger to the US (in both cases: a new 9/11), and of stopping the atrocities perpetrated by evil men (Saddam, the Taliban) against their own nations. In my opinion, those who bought into the first pitch are near certain to buy into the second. On the other hand, many who didn't buy into the IWR will support the new Afghan policy out of party loyalty, or because Obama isn't Bush. (He isn't, but maybe he's not so great either.) In my opinion, both ignored the realities of what would actually happen to these nations as a result of US military intervention.

[cbdo2007]

13. I understand that but the major factor that is different between the IWR and the surge in Afghanista

n is that we weren't currently already f*cking up Iraq when the IWR was made. Everyone was acting on emotions and overlooking bad data because they just wanted to get whoever the govt. said were the bad guys.

In the surge in Afghanistan, we are already in Afghanistan and have been f*cking it up for 7 years now. Your explanation above and comparing the two seems to leave out the first stage of the Afghan war, which is what makes the surge necessary. Iraq wasn't necessary for any reason, but the troops in Afghanistan need an exit strategy somehow.

Am I making sense? Not trying to start a whole nother debate on this, in fact I probably don't have the energy for it, but I think it's fair to point out that Bush just up and went to Iraq out of thin air...Obama HAS to deal with Afghanistan because it was already going on.

[JackRiddler]

16. Your argument is coherent but I disagree.

The exit strategy for Afghanistan is to start pulling out now, not to escalate and create expectations of "victory" with a reassessment promised in 18 months.

If it's a fuck up now, it will continue to be a fuck up. Except that this fuck-up means more drone attacks, more dead civilians.

Put the $30 billion that this is supposed to cost (yeah right, like that's a real number) in an international aid fund with conditions on honest management, and get the troops out of Afghanistan.

[harun]

18. Your post gives me hope

Afghanistan needs what it needed after the Soviets pulled out. Aid to the right people to help them build a society. Injecting troops and violence doesn't build a society it starts a war.

[cbdo2007]

19. I think we all wish it was that easy.

Like I said I dont think I have the energy to discuss this further though. I think someone switched my regular coffee with decaf this morning and it's really hitting me hard right now. Need the advil....

[JackRiddler]

21. I think in the US political climate war has always been the easy choice.

[mike_c]

7. never....

Not for an instant. And my DU journal proves it!

[harun]

17. The VAST majority here opposed it.

[jobycom]

10. I opposed the invasion, the resolution (which wasn't the same thing), and the Afghanistan invasion.

And the new plan.

The IWR, for those who have forgotten or who never knew, was a last-ditch effort to wrest control of the invasion plans from Bush. It was NOT a vote for war, as so many now think it was. Bush was going to invade, and had been publicly stating that he did not need Congressional approval to invade Iraq. People have to understand that context to understand the IWR. Bush was going to invade without it. Repeat that, because it is the part of the story that many people don't seem to remember. Bush planned to invade Iraq before he took office. He was elected largely with the money and advice of people who had pushed Clinton to invade Iraq. He was going to invade. He said over and over that he did not need Congressional approval to invade.

The IWR was Congress's attempt to be relevant, and wrest control of the invasion from Bush. The Republicans controlled Congress, so no bill was going to forbid it, but even the Republicans had a problem with Bush simply ignoring him. So Congress went to work on a bill that limited Bush and took as much control of the situation as they could muster. The IWR was the compromise. It put more restrictions on Bush--requiring him to seek UN approval, for instance--than Bush had. The restrictions were weak, because the Republicans controlled everything, but they were there.

Bush was going to invade if the IWR failed. With the IWR, there was a chance to limit or halt Bush's efforts. That's why a lot of Democrats voted for it. Read Kerry's and Clinton's speeches, read Wesley Clark's endorsements of the Resolution, read his speech to the HASC committee the month before it passed. Read Bill Clinton's comments on it. Many people saw the IWR as the last chance to stop the invasion.

It failed. But without the IWR, Bush was still going to invade. He had stated that emphatically, there was no doubt.

Having said all that, I still never supported it. I knew why Clinton and Kerry and others supported it, but I still didn't want to give Bush even that recommendation. But for many, it was not a vote for war or to give Bush power. It was the opposite for many voters.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq, and of Afghanistan (in the way it was handled--we could have used ground troops to target only proven Al-Qaida members, without aggressively slaughtering so many innocent people in our attempts to avenge 9-11). I opposed the surge in Iraq, I oppose the surge in Afghanistan. We should never have invaded, we should pull out now. Yesterday. Any problems caused by our withdrawal will be caused no matter when or how we withdraw.

That's my statement. Not that anyone will read the whole thing. I just like to throw words around, I guess.

[JackRiddler]

20. I contest that Bush would have invaded Iraq if the IWR failed.

Certainly it would have raised the political costs and prompted a much larger confrontation with the antiwar forces in Congress and on the streets. Unitary executive doctrine be damned, it would have been a big battle if the Bush regime had gone ahead against a vote of the Congress.

What you write is not the rhetoric I remember coming from the Democratic supporters of the IWR at the time. Just like the neocons, they were talking about WMDs, 9/11, the threat of Saddam Hussein and the ineffectiveness of sanctions. The loudest voices heard were Clinton, Schumer, then-former VP candidate Lieberman and Kerry.

23 Senators and 140 or so Representatives understood the difference that a failed IWR would make, and they voted against it - including the late Sen. Paul Wellstone.


The text of the resolution itself does not support your argument. Check it out. The whereas are a complete reproduction of the Bushian Big Lie. I don't see any whereas that assert Congressional authority. Most important, see Sec. 3, which authorizes presidential use of force at his own discetion, and 3(2), which explicitly says this is an authorization under the War Powers Act. These leave no room for your interpretation that the Congress was trying to exert control. Once the IWR passed, the invasion became inevitable, and anyone who voted for it later claiming otherwise is either pretending or naive.

<DOC>



<[Page 1497>]

AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ RESOLUTION OF 2002

<[Page 116 STAT. 1498>]

Public Law 107-243
107th Congress

Joint Resolution



To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against
Iraq. <<NOTE: Oct. 16, 2002 - >>

Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and
illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition
of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the
national security of the United States and enforce United Nations
Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;

Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a
United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq
unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear,
biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver
and develop them, and to end its support for international
terrorism;

Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States
intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that
Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale
biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear
weapons development program that was much closer to producing a
nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire,
attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify
and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal
of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998), Congress concluded that
Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened
vital United States interests and international peace and security,
declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of its
international obligations'' and urged the President ``to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligations'';

Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of
the United States and international peace and security in the
Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach
of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing
to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons
capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and
supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolution of the United Nations
Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its
civilian population thereby threatening international peace

<[Page 116 STAT. 1499>]

and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or
account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq,
including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property
wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and
willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations
and its own people;

Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing
hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States,
including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush
and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and
Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the
United Nations Security Council;

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for
attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including
the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in
Iraq;

Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist
organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and
safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001,
underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of
weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist
organizations;

Whereas Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of
mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either
employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United
States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international
terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that
would result to the United States and its citizens from such an
attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend
itself;

Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) authorizes
the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security
Council Resolution 660 (1990) and subsequent relevant resolutions
and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten
international peace and security, including the development of
weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United
Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolution 687 (1991), repression of its civilian population
in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688
(1991), and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations
in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution
949 (1994);

Whereas in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq
Resolution (Public Law 102-1), Congress has authorized the President
``to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations
Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve
implementation of Security Council Resolution 660, 661, 662, 664,
665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677'';

Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it
``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of
United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent
with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against

<[Page 116 STAT. 1500>]

Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that Iraq's repression of its
civilian population violates United Nations Security Council
Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a continuing threat to the peace,
security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,'' and that
Congress, ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the
goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';

Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338) expressed
the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United
States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi
regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to
replace that regime;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United
States to ``work with the United Nations Security Council to meet
our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to ``work for the necessary
resolutions,'' while also making clear that ``the Security Council
resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and
security will be met, or action will be unavoidable'';

Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on
terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist
groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction
in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and
other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it
is in the national security interests of the United States and in
furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations
Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use
of force if necessary;

Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on
terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested
by the President to take the necessary actions against international
terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations,
organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or
aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or
harbored such persons or organizations;

Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take
all appropriate actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or
persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist
attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such
persons or organizations;

Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take
action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism
against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint
resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law
107-40); and

Whereas it is in the national security interests of the United States to
restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region:
Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress <<NOTE: Authorization for Use of Military
Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002. 50 USC 1541 note.>> assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization for Use of
Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002''.

<[Page 116 STAT. 1501>]

SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the
President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security
Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq
and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security
Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay,
evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

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

(a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the Armed
Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq.

(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of
the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President
shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible,
but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make
available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the
President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or
other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council
resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent
with the United States and other countries continuing to take
the necessary actions against international terrorist and
terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations,
or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the
terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with
section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress
declares that this section is intended to constitute specific
statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of
the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this
joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers
Resolution.

SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

(a) <<NOTE: President.>> Reports.--The President shall, at least
once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant
to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the
exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning
for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are
completed, including those actions described in section 7 of the Iraq
Liberation Act of 1998 (Public Law 105-338).

<[Page 116 STAT. 1502>]

(b) Single Consolidated Report.--To the extent that the submission
of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission
of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution
otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting
requirements of the War Powers Resolution (Public Law 93-148), all such
reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the
Congress.
(c) Rule of Construction.--To the extent that the information
required by section 3 of the Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) is included in the report
required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the
requirements of section 3 of such resolution.

Approved October 16, 2002.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.J. Res. 114 (S.J. Res. 45) (S.J. Res. 46):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 107-721 (Comm. on International Relations).
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 148 (2002):
Oct. 8, 9, considered in House.
Oct. 10, considered and passed House and Senate.
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, Vol. 38 (2002):
Oct. 16, Presidential remarks and statement.

<all>

[jobycom]

22. That's not right.

First, Bush would have absolutely invaded. He was fronted for office and elected just to invade Iraq. There was no question of his invading. He had a legal argument for it, even. He claimed that previous treaties had authorized the invasion if Hussein failed to live up to certain conditions, so Congress had already approved, and he pointed out that Clinton had used the same argument to bomb Iraq and to threaten Hussein with invasion. Since no Republican and few Democrats were contesting this, he had no obstacle. And faced with a Fait accompli, no court would have ruled against Bush on it. Certainly not the Court that appointed him.

Second, nothing about the IWR failing would have forbidden the invasion. Bush wouldn't have been going against anything Congress had passed or stated. The failure of the IWR wouldn't have forbidden Bush from invading or even expressed an opinion or desire of Congress.

Third, the mood of the nation then--after 9-11--was pro-invasion. Bush would have gotten no public reprisal for it. Many of his supporters would have loved him more for defying Congress.

Fourth, that same mood meant very few Democrats spoke out against the invasion or Bush with any force, but they still made their intentions clear enough. Both sides played word games, seeming to support something while opposing it--that's how politicians work. Read Wesley Clark's speech before the HASC. He strongly condemned Hussein and supported a unanymous resolution authorizing Bush to use force, but his intention was to stop the invasion by pressuring Hussein into compliance. Also, Clark knew that the more conditions you put on Bush, the less able he was to simply invade if Hussein met the conditions. It was an attempt to limit Bush's ability to wage war, and to give us a chance to stop it. He, Clinton, and Kerry knew it was a slim chance, but it was the only one they had. Remember, Clinton and Clark were close enough to know each other's private thoughts, and Clark endorsed Clinton for president. That confused people who didn't understand the IWR, but those who did get it weren't confused.

Fifth, not all Democrats opposed the war when they voted for the IWR. The IWR was a compromise, and it was the closest thing to a restriction we could place on Bush with the republicans controlling Congress and Bush having veto power, but it didn't place many restrictions. It did give Congress an illusion of doing their job, and it allowed those who supported the war to boast of their roll in it. Some Democrats, like Lieberman and Edwards, were strong war supporters (Edwards more because it was popular, Lieberman more for other reasons). Edwards originally boasted of his support for the war, until the polls turned, then he tried to pretend he was repentant.

Sixth, Bush was going to invade. Nothing limited his power to do so as long as Congress wouldn't oppose his legal justification--and they wouldn't, that was clear. If the IWR had failed, the invasion would have happened, maybe sooner. Nothing limited Bush's power to invade if the IWR passed. If it did pass, there were conditions on the invasion and there were triggers Hussein could have pulled to halt the invasion. There was a slim chance to stop it.

I didn't support the IWR because I had seen Bush operate in Texas, and knew he wouldn't honor the restrictions anyway, and would twist them to look like permission. I think the Democrats who voted for the IWR (and don't forget, Obama even said he probably would have if he had been there, although he changed his story during the campaign) were duped, and were wrong. But not all of them voted for it wanting war. Many of them voted for it as a last attempt to halt the war. Those who voted against it were wiser and understood Bush's game better.

But it was not a vote for war. The war would absolutely beyond any doubt have happened if it hadn't. That's the reason Bush was put into power. Those who missed that fact are the ones who miss what was going on behind the scenes with the IWR.

I have parsed the IWR and the speeches of many supporters and opponents, and I followed this all closely. That might not convince you I'm right, but I'm just pointing out that I'm not discussing this from ignorance or as a revisionist. If the archives here went back far enough, I could show you plenty of discussions here at the time demonstrating everything I've said. Afterwards, the facts were too hard for someone like Kerry or Clinton or Clark to explain in a campaign, and it was to the advantage of candidates like Edwards and Obama (for different reasons) to ignore the nuances and paint the issue as black and white. But that's the real revisionism.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

11. Want an acid flashback?

From the way back machine:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=978689

Jan. 04

Poll question: How many DUers think the war is acceptable?

Since some Democrats do think the war was worth fighting, it might be interesting to find out how many of those are here in DU-land.

````````````````````````````````````````

Check out the whole thread - very interesting!

I am proud to say I was one from the very beginning who believed the Iraq invasion was completely wrong and who worked their ass off to try to knock sense into peoples' and polticians' heads.

[damntexdem]

14. I opposed the IWR and dunno about the new escalation.

Action against Afghanistan (the Taleban and Al Qaida) was justified; but I opposed action by the Bushistas because I knew they would screw it up -- which they did. The invasion of Iraq was a war crime. I felt for years that we should get out of Iraq and refocus on Afghanistan. But now, I'm not sure that anything is still salvageable in Afghanistan.

[JackRiddler]

24. Do I need to do a new poll?

I know the IWR had many supporters back then. The invasion even had a few. Maybe I should try again with just two choices - Did you support the IWR at the time, yes or no?

[JackRiddler]

25. Kicking cos I know there are IWR supporters (former, anyway) out there!

[leftstreet]

27. The question is tough

More like:

With the information you had at the time, did you initially support the IWR?

Did you change your mind as you gathered more information during 8 yrs of BushLies?

[JackRiddler]

29. You're right, I need to get over my reluctance to grant any excuses.

Because, you see, the information available at the time was pretty much the same as today.

You could go on the Internet and establish, via readings of the foreign and alternative press -- and especially of what a certain former UN inspector charged with destroying Iraqi WMDs was saying -- that there were NO WMDs IN IRAQ! And even from the MSM you could figure out that there was NO SADDAM-AL QAEDA CONNECTION, IRAQ HAD ZERO TO DO WITH 9/11! You could also figure out by looking at a certain Project for a New American Century that the WAR WAS PLANNED EVEN BEFORE BUSH'S SELECTION and that the regime had hit the ground running in implementing it BEFORE 9/11.

So what's changed in the meantime? Why the slow learning curve about things anyone could have known in 2002? Did a million Iraqis have to die first? Did 5000 US troops have to die?

[leftstreet]

31. There's your problem right there...

"You could go on the Internet and establish, via readings of the foreign and alternative press..."

vs

[JackRiddler]

32. But how does FOXNEWS explain the perpetual self-deception of many left of center...

Including many on DU, who first swallow whatever liberal-imperialist excuses are dished up (Save Darfur, Stop Saddam, Save the Afghan Women!). They only turn against each year's stupid interventionist adventure after it's too late, because troops were already committed and Now We Must Win to Fix What We Fucked Up.

[ecstatic]

26. No and No. But I'm giving Pres. Obama the benefit of the doubt nt

[Iggo]

28. Wow. That was easy. (n/t)

[rucky]

30. Me being against the IWR is how I found DU.

For awhile there, I thought I was the only person who thought something stank with that push to war.

[TexasObserver]

33. I OPPOSED the IWR and I OPPOSE the new policy in Afghanistan.

The IWR was a sucker punch, and the Democratic leadership stepped into it.

[chrisa]

34. I was FOR the Iraq War resolution.

I was 16 at the time. I'm not ashamed to admit it.

However, I'm not for any type of war now, including Afghanistan or Iraq.