Please tell me I'm wrong to worry about this:

[choie]

The problem with Dick Durbin's admission is that it enables the Bush administration to refute charges of lying us into war by claiming that the Dems on the intelligence committee were well aware of the questions of the veracity of the intelligence, and were consequently just as guilty as they were (the administration). Not only did these Dems fail to tell the American people that they were being lied to, but they failed to tell their fellow Dems the truth. Any thoughts?

[DireStrike]

1. I'd love to say you're wrong.

I can't.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. Thoughts? They were in a fucked situation.

I have a great deal of respect for Durbin, but I've got very little respect for those who knew what he did, but then voted for the war. Terrible that we even have to have this kind of discussion, isn't it?

[LSK]

3. let me refute this for the 10000000th time

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x789111

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

[mike_c]

4. it's about time people understand that many dems were complicit...

...in Bush's crimes against humanity.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

9. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[alittlelark]

16. 'Lets get Mikey to try it - he'll eat anything!'

OK, it's mike_c... but say them together fast.... you'll get it.

[NMDemDist2]

5. you know, that was one of the reddest flags for me on the Iraq War vote

most of the Senators on the Intelligence cmte voted against it. My thought at the time was "what do they know that we don't??" and they swear not to reveal any info in the Top Secret briefings they receive.

sigh

at least someone stills keeps a vow :shrug:

[mike_c]

6. their first vow was to defend and protect the Constitution...

...which they have helped this administration trample.

[LSK]

8. read my reply and stop talking nonsense

[mike_c]

11. nonsense? Here's what Ray McGovern had to say on Democracy Now!

This morning. http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/01/1410229

RAY McGOVERN: I think people like Dick Durbin have to change their whole mindset and realize that they are not a subservient branch of government. You know, I’m a Virginian, and I think George Mason and James Madison and Tom Jefferson of rolling over in their grave. Here’s Durbin saying, “I knew that the war was going to be fought on false pretenses, but I was sworn to secrecy.” Well, he was sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And that’s what he ought to have done. Classification is to protect sources and methods. It’s not to protect presidents, OK? And so, he should have come out and said, “Look, this is not what I’m hearing in the Intelligence Committee. Hold the presses. We’re not going to go to war until I get satisfaction.” He didn’t do that.

Now they're -- well, now they’re in the majority. They were in the majority then in the Senate, and they didn’t stand up to it. Now, you have to stand up to it now, because this country needs this war to stop. I hope they have the guts to do it.

AMY GOODMAN: That issue that you raise of Senator Dick Durbin saying that he was angry about it, but “frankly, I couldn’t do much about it, because in the Intelligence Committee we are sworn to secrecy.” He was talking about being misled into the war. Durbin went on to say, “We can’t walk outside the door and say the statement made yesterday by the White House is in direct contradiction to classified information that is being given to this Congress.” Why can't he say precisely that?

RAY McGOVERN: Sure, he can. Sure, he can. And for several years now, the people in the House have been saying, “Well, we can’t do anything because we’re in the minority.” Well, in reflecting on this, I realize that when he did that or did not do that, the Democrats were in the majority in the Senate. And so, what I’m saying here is that they have to step up to their constitutional prerogatives, their constitutional responsibilities, and make sure that this war stops, because there is no justification for the surge or for the funding, other than to prevent the war from being definitively lost while George Bush and Dick Cheney are still in office. That’s what our men are dying for, our men and women are dying for now, and it’s unconscionable.

more@link

[porphyrian]

10. Hiding the lie makes the lie no less a lie. There are just more guilty parties. - n/t

[Carolina]

12. You hit the nail squarely on the head

Even without breaching any security, the information was there and Dems should, at the very least, have STUCK TOGETHER and held out for serious debate as Robert Byrd so forcefully, and ultimately futilely, cautioned and urged.

Remember the repukes were using war as an election ploy for 2002; they were in a rush to get IWR passed before the 2002 midterms. Well guess what? Our guys knew the truth but went along because they were afraid of LOSING. But we LOST anyway! Wouldn't it have been better to lose standing for something! Then they could now say: Told ya so. The administration was lying and we tried to avert this. We may have paid with our Congressional seats but look at what our nation has paid in blood!

Now, they are complicit. Now we know that many knew then that the 'intelligence' was wrong, or contrived, yet they LET THE WAR HAPPEN. And they're still being fucking mealy-mouthed about it.

End this fucking war. Send the squatter no more bills. An invasion and occupation founded on lies broke Iraq and the invading occupiers can't fix it no matter how much they spend or how long they stay.

[polichick]

13. That's the perfect word: "complicit"

The Dems who voted for the war failed us ~ there's no two ways about it. And how any of those in the know (Dem or Rep) could have stayed quiet, I can't understand. Powell sold his soul to protect the administration ~ I'll bet he's tortured about it now.

[Carolina]

14. that's the really sad part

I don't think Powell is tortured at all. I actually think he sold his soul long ago when he CHOSE to sign on with Bush and Dick (remember him strolling with them at the ranch when selection 2000 was still in the air?).

Also, he fought in Vietnam and was part of the first Gulf War. He should have know better. How does a country that was decimated in 1991 and subsequently placed on sanctions for 12 years suddenly have such awesome capacity. It just never made any sense to this Jane Q. Public who has/had NO access to 'intelligence.' I just like to read.

No, my friend, Colin is in it as deep as the rest and is profitting just as they are.

Sad thing, too, is I don't hear any contrition from all the Senate Dems who voted for this or even those who voted no but remained quiet for sooooo long with the notable exceptions of Robert Byrd and Ted Kennedy who both spoke out and voted no when it mattered.

We, the people, have been abandoned by those who swore to uphold the Constitution. All the lives lost or otherwise forever changed, all the money squandered, all the good faith/world standing now destroyed, DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN :cry:

[polichick]

15. It really is excruciatingly sad...

And I think it's true that most key players have no remorse, but Powell seemed better than that. And Whitman too. I wonder if they were just snowed at first and didn't realize who they were throwing in with. I do remember those fools strutting around the ranch ~ and also Powell sitting behind that table making his bogus case for war. I just stood there shaking my head, thinking he couldn't possibly believe what he was saying.

Yes, we have been abandoned, and yet two of our front runners for 08 voted for the war ~ the lesser of two evils I guess. In my heart of hearts I hope this is all a catalyst for a sea change in the US, and I would love it if a new progressive grassroots party arose from the rubble ~ as crazily optimistic as that sounds!