West Virginia Senator on Iraq: "My Vote Was Wrong."

[mobuto]

CHARLESTON, W.Va. (AP) - U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller regrets his vote to authorize a war against Iraq.

``If I had known then what I know now, I would have voted against it,'' Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Friday. ``I have admitted that my vote was wrong.''

The Democratic-led Senate approved the war resolution 77-23 on Oct. 11, 2002, one day after the U.S. House approved a similar resolution.

``The decision got made before there was a whole bunch of intelligence,'' said Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee. ``I think the intelligence was shaped. And I think the interpretation of the intelligence was shaped.

--continued--

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V7276.AP-Rockefeller-Ira.html

[newsguyatl]

1. wow

now if kerry would only do this, i'd really be in his corner, heart and soul.

[Pastiche423]

14. Why would Kerry do that?

He wants to put 40K more troops there!

He is, I believe, what you would call a "nuanced" warmonger. :mad:

[murielm99]

42. So now that shrub has made the mess, Kerry is supposed to just walk away

after he is elected? Get a clue. That would be a wonderful legacy for him. Go home, and let it descend into civil war.

It might anyway, but at least Kerry has to try.

[Pastiche423]

66. What clue might that be?

That Kerry was so stupid he believed whistle ass' lies?

Or

That Kerry chose the political expedient vote, since he knew he was running for president and was too afraid of being called unpatriotic?

[Zhade]

90. Get a clue - Iraq is the new Viet Nam.

Get a clue - we're going to be driven out, just like we were driven from Viet Nam.

Get a clue - the continuing occupation is still illegal under international law.

Get a clue.

(See how annoying a patronizing statement like "get a clue" is? Maybe we can have discussions like adults, instead of painting someone you disagree with as "clueless"?)

[0007]

139. murielm99, I believe the...

US should pull out of Iraq and turn it over to the UN tomorrow and at the same time get rid of Halliburton and Ahman Chalabi and other tax draining assholes that believe Iraq can't survive without the U.S.

What would be so hard about that?

[Classical_Liberal]

157. He could involve the UN

atleast. He is an incoherant warmonger right now. I don't know what his foriegn policy is, and neither does anyone else, which is why Bush ranks higher on security issues depite his demononstrable failures.

[Dookus]

74. I'm curious why you repeat that lie

when it's been debunked here many, many times? He does NOT want to add 40,000 troops. He wants to REPLACE 40,000 troops with new troops.

[Pastiche423]

84. Add or replace

What does it matter?

Kerry wants 40K troops that are not in Iraq now to be there IF he becomes president.

Btw, I did not repeat a lie.

[Dookus]

98. what does it matter?

Are you serious?

Because in one case, 40,000 MORE troops are put there, as you originally asserted. In the other case, the TRUE case, the same number of troops are stationed there.

It is a lie to say Kerry wants to put 40,000 MORE troops there. It has been debunked here repeatedly, but you know that.

[Layman]

132. Another nuance

Call it the old, "Bad cop good cop routine".

[wildwww2]

154. If you are correct. I will still vote for him. While holding my nose.

I hope Kerry gets smart and becomes aware that Iraq is a lose-lose situation. He should cut our loses and get us the hell out of Iraq.
Peace
Wildman
Al Gore is My President

[mzmolly]

73. I agree. I wish Kerry would have a bit of mea culpa bout this whole thing

:shrug:

But, he's still got my vote come November.

[newsguyatl]

2. post this in general discussion.

this is huge

[ChompySnack]

3. The scandal is ratcheting up

Look for more people to disavow the Iraq blunder.

[treepig]

4. it's a bit late dumbass

pretty much everyone on this forum knew your vote was wrong in realtime.

perhaps if you had bothered to do a bit of independent verification of the lies the whitehouse was feeding you? don't we (i.e., the u.s. taxpayer) pay the salaries of a staff that you could have used just for that purpose.

you're a complete dumbass!!

[yardwork]

55. No no, he's a politician!

Well, it might be the same thing.

It's cover-your-ass here and cover-your-ass there 100% of the time in politics.

It's all about elections. How will this look to the home-team during the next election? Everyone in Congress is focused on the next election, and the certain knowledge that opponents will exploit every vote for political advantage.

Most in Congress didn't dare vote against the war. Their opponents would scream "weak on terrorism!" "weak on national defense!" "communist!" during the next election.

But now that the * administration is weakened, and Americans are starting to ask WTF about the war, now it's safe to say "we was lied to!"

It's all a sham. All a sham.

Americans could change the situation by paying closer attention and not agreeing with every hysterical charge. We could demand that our representatives make informed choices.

[Just Me]

60. I know few politicians who demonstrate unfettered courage,...

,...until the "political" environment is cushy. That is just the way it is in America and they only way it will change is if/when "the people" demand change.

That being said, I am glad Rockefellar finally "feels" comfortable enough to take a stand. I am certain even more will follow since he is quite the cautious one. He must know the shit is hitting the fan (may even be a part of throwing it all out there).

[rednek_Liberal]

161. Agreed...

only one solution ...Term Limits.

<on ed. typo>

[KoKo]

5. I have a hard time with this. A Rockefeller who doesn't know the ME?

He served on the Senate Intelligence Commission and didn't hear rumors, ask questions? A Rockefeller whose family was "Standard Oil Co.?"
A Rockefeller who was educated at the finest schools and who comes from one of the most powerful families in the US?

This Rockefeller now says that we didn't realize that we wouldn't be welcomed in Iraq and the Intelligence was faulty?

I just can't see this as honesty from him. What's up with this?

And, I say this as someone who likes Jay Rockefeller but think this admission from him is totally bizarre given his background and connections. What good does this do now?

[sadiesworld]

9. By all means...

Let's take our focus off of the real problem, the disaster monkey, and make a big stink out of Rockerfeller's change of position. Perhaps others who might be having second thoughts will be dissuaded from coming forward. :crazy:

[treepig]

11. you don't think that the bush enablers are a real problem??

at least with mr. bush we know he's evil.

but when those supposedly on our side aid and abet him, some of us think that's a real problem, too.

[KoKo]

50. No, my point was that Rockefeller had to have known. He should have

not voted for the Iraq Invasion and supported Robert Byrd. Why didn't he? He had to have known that this was an Invasion just to suit the Bushies. Why now does he come out and say this?

I'm not objecting to him saying it, but that he probably knew more than we here even know about the Bush's Oil, Iraq, 9/11 and he waits until now to say it was wrong?? :shrug:

[yardwork]

56. See my comments above. It's all politics. Reelection politics.

[treepig]

59. i agree he knew

so why vote for the IWR?

monumental stupidity/naivety? (but wouldn't that be ruled out by his knowledge of the bush lies?)

political pandering to the then in-vogue bushmania?

quite frankly, i don't know which option is worse - either one should be a disqualification for office for sure, tho.

[Zhade]

94. Good point regarding Byrd.

IIRC, his argument had less to do with any WMD and more with the fact that even if Hussein had possessed tons of WMD, attacking Iraq would still have been illegal under international law.

That's one thing many people forget: the whole WMD issue was a distraction.

[Just Me]

100. No personal offense, but,...you are in denial about that game,...

,...which is a part of our reality, of his reality, and which is a reality/game played to the envelope by Repukes who are the "idol" of greed and culpability. I mean, seriously,...do anymore than a handful of representatives play the game of politics "for the people" or themselves? Ask yourself, how many of those who do enter that game purposefully for the people actually survive when the majority are in it for themselves and demean you for being "soft" on advancing people?

You have to be pretty f@cking tough to enter a game where every player is out to win for him/herself when the faux objective is advertised to the world as serving a nation and humanity.

[sadiesworld]

93. You're right, let's just vote for Bush b/c we KNOW HE'S EVIL.

[treepig]

106. i'm glad you agree!

there's nothing as painful as being stabbed in the back by a supposed friend

[calimary]

62. I, too, wonder what the f--- took him so long, but hey, redemption is

redemption. I'm a Catholic. We specialize in the Redemption Boogie. Just file him in the "Better Late than Never" file. At least he's not still one of those idiots still steeped in deep denial.

And yes, let's KEEP THE FOCUS ON THE SHIT-HEAD WHO STOLE OUR WHITE HOUSE, and has, by now, stolen our honor, our integrity as Americans (who the hell is gonna believe anything we say, or any case we make from here on, internationally?), our budget surplus, our jobs, our workers' rights, our women's rights, our elders' rights, our privacy rights, our environmental protections, our children's protections, our old-age protections, AND our national security in the face of outside threats.

Once Rockefeller sees the light, maybe more like him will, also.

Running scared

The Bush administration fears voters will believe Richard Clarke's allegations, writes Philip James

Friday March 26, 2004

The swiftness and ferocity of the Bush White House's attack on Richard Clarke tells you two things: his story may be largely true, and the Bush administration is terrified that the American people will believe it.

(snip)

The Bush White House has banked on all who were privy to these details keeping the code of silence. But too many people outside the White House sphere of influence are too well informed, be they commandos on the ground or career civil servants at the state department and CIA.
Some have come forward, risking the ire of the Bushies. Many more are considering it, weighing their conscience alongside their sense of self-preservation. Several who are talking are doing so on the condition of anonymity.
But, as this campaign heats up, some will rethink and go on the record. It is becoming clear their silence might ensure that the Bush White House gets away with the central lie of its tenure - the blanket denial that it abandoned the war on terror to pursue an unrelated, pre-selected Iraq agenda.
The louder the Bush administration proclaims that it is the only qualified protector of national security, the more offensively that rings in the ears of those who know the truth. Sooner or later - and certainly before November - that truth will out.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/comment/story/0,14259,1178658,00.html

It's the latter-day domino theory in action.

And, for first-thing-Monday-morning - NOTE MY SIG LINE...

[Classical_Liberal]

158. Bush is even more ignorant than Rockefeller just admitted

and he comes from the same type of family.

[Fleshdancer]

6. finally.

after everything we now know, I'm suprised more Senators aren't saying this.

[boobooday]

7. It's hard to believe they were really fooled

Since not everyone was (see Kucinich) but it's good to hear them admit they were wrong. It's the only thing they can do now.

http://www.wgoeshome.com

[FlaGranny]

108. It's hard to believe that 3/4 of the country was fooled,

but they were. It's not hard for me to believe that 3/4 of elected officials were, too.

Disclaimer: That 3/4 figure is a rough guess on my part.

[PaDUer]

122. How many politicians

received tons of emails from us regarding this=MANY..and they thought we were insane...oust the entire bunch!

[Barkley]

8. We need his resignation not his regrets.

Over 580 GIs have died and terrorism has increased.

Many credible people such as Sen. Robert Byrd warned that Iraq was not a serious threat and the IWR was unconstitutional.

But like Mr. Bush Mr. Rockefeller CHOSE to ignore the obvious.

He all the other 77 Senators that voted for the IWR need to quit.

[mobuto]

10. Don't be ridiculous

While you worry about forcing liberal Democrats to resign, I'll worry about getting George Bush defeated in November.

[Barkley]

152. These guys voted for the IWR knowing it was wrong and

they're not getting punished or experience any penality just because he's a 'liberal Democrat'?!?!?!

Its good to hear him admit his mistake but what prevents
it from doing it again, and again, and again.

If Rockefeller runs again, he'll probably win.

Now that's ridiculous.

[underpants]

13. Agreed his senior Senator was the most opposed to this

As you posted Byrd was as concerned about the powers being given up (possibly permenantly) by Congress to the Executive branch regardless of who is President. He also did state that Iraq was not worth the cost in lives and money.

Then again the OUT on this is that everyone (Congress and the UN) fell for the W&Co. MO of using vague language in the proposals they wrote and when asked say "Oh it means THIS" and once passed say "No we meant that it meant THAT". They did this on the war as well as on the last tax cut-rushing it to the floor before anyone had a chance to read it and uh citizens had a chance to voice their opinions on it you know like a representative democracy. At the UN Negroponte was running around telling everyone that their was no "automaticity" in 1441 and as soon as it was passed (even though it states that the matter will be "revisited") and the aluminum tubes were found they started screaming that that automatically meant military action was needed.

Rockefeller and Kerry et al should have known better either way.

[ezee]

16. They

did the very same thing with the medicare bill. They hid the truth and the they lied. And now they are trying to cover up.

[underpants]

18. The Medicare bill is another perfect example

Thanks I forgot that one.

and Welcome to DU :hi: if'n I haven't before.

[calimary]

64. Yeah! Welcome to DU!

MY, haven't we got a bunch of new welcomes to offer around here! TRES Cool!

[aquart]

And replace him with what?

Someone who can't admit he was wrong at all.

That's a great idea, penalize someone who admits to being fallible. Brilliant! Got more?

[Dr Fate]

156. Lets dont and say we did....

This was Bush's show, not the Democrats...

[leesa]

12. You SHOULD HAVE known then what you know now, we did.

Finally, the rats are jumping.

[ezee]

15. The Rats

aways jump when the ship starts taking on water. Wonder who jumps next?

[aquart]

31. The Democratic ship is taking on water?

Real sorry to hear that.

[Skittles]

17. I find it hard to believe they did not know their vote was wrong

we knew - and he didn't? Come on. It's nice he has disavowed it and I do wish Kerry would do the same but I don't believe they didn't know what they were doing.

[Jackpine Radical]

19. I think the problem is that we knew they were wrong

based on commonly available information. They, on the other hand, were privy to all this high-class, super-classified intelligence stuff that just HAD to be more accurate than the information available to the commoners, so THEY KNEW BETTER THAN US!!! Just too bad all that high-class, super-secret stuff turned out to be a bunch of glued-together lies.

Their arrogance did them in. On both sides of the aisle.

I remember my wife trying to talk sense to Ron Kind. He got this deer-in-the-headlights look, disavowed any belief in "that internet stuff," and talked about how afraid he was based on the secret things he knew but couldn't talk about. "I could never forgive myself if my vote helped kill thousands more Americans," or something to that effect.

[Skittles]

25. the stolen election should have been their first clue

and - didn't they know about PNAC? AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. Dems who voted for IWR just PISS ME OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KoKo]

52. Agree Skittles and Jackpine. tried to say that above and got flamed.

[Skittles]

53. people who supported the war have blood on their hands

it leads to heavy states of denial

[Zhade]

97. Well, some people don't like uncomfortable truths.

Like the fact that millions of people worldwide knew that invading and occupying Iraq was illegal under international law and would only make the world a LESS safe place.

Like the fact that the vote on the IWR was a vote to enable a clearly-eager-to-go-to-war b*sh administration to do just that.

Hard truths often bring out anger from those who refuse to accept those truths. Kinda like the DUers here who believed we had to go to war because of WMDs. It's fuzzy due to the fact that it was a while ago now, but there were actually DUers who supported this war (there may be a few who still do), and I recall a lot of heated debate.

That's unlikely to change anytime soon.

[Skittles]

107. you nail it, Zhade

but I will not allow them to twist the truth. There was never ANY credible evidence to occupy Iraq - and PLENTY OF EVIDENCE to tell them such an action would be a BIG GIANT FAILURE. It is still so unbelievable to me that people could find Bush INC even REMOTELY credible; it boggles the mind.

[2cents]

85. Second clue -

- Ari smiling while referring to Iraq as a "new product" being rolled out.

They're still openly laughing about selling this lemon.

[calimary]

71. You also must remember the mind control games the republi-CONS

were playing back then. They were EXPLOITING 9/11 for every last drop of blood. ANYTHING anyone did, said, or even thought, that was contrary to what this administration demanded was CLEARLY and LOUDLY labeled UNPATRIOTIC AND UNAMERICAN, and thus, a "Saddam-lover" or "Saddam-appeaser." Do you remember all the Neville Chamberlain slams we all got, and heard, ad nauseam, back then? Shall I tell you of the emails I got, personally, for commentaries I wrote, that accused me of being an enemy-sympathizer and in collusion with the terrorists and no better than Neville Chamberlain? We were sneered at, and heck, we're civillians. There was a monstrous machine cranked up by the right wing, EVERY republi-CON senator, congressperson, lobbyist, think-tanker, party-operative, pundit, and talk-radio crackpot to get the freepers and dittoheads out there mobilized, en masse, to storm the Bastille with emails, faxes, angry phone calls and letters, and threats, and God knows what else. The Ralph Reeds and the Marc Racicots and Karl Roves and Richard Vigueries and Richard Mellon Scaifes and Pat Robertsons of the world were on these people like fire ants all over honey.

I CLEARLY remember reading an item about a town meeting held by Northern California Congressman Pete Stark, who's pretty liberal and firm in his thinking along those lines, and yet even HE was intimidated by these rabid armies of knuckle-draggers. He TOLD HIS CONSTITUENTS at this town meeting (a vast majority of them liberal, probably even more liberal than he is) that they were on everybody, accusing them of being unpatriotic (You're WITH US or AGAINST US - that WAS NOT aimed only at other nations, my friends) if you did not go along, almost mindlessly, with "Our President." I got emails where I can quote you sentence after sentence about this. About how we HAD to support Our President. To do anything less was TREASONOUS. And yes, they used the words "treasonous," "treason," and "traitor" a LOT. This happened, NONSTOP, for MONTHS. A couple of years, at least, until the war started unraveling after the "Slop Gun" charade on the aircraft carrier.

Hell, if Fortney Stark was cowed, and if even MY guy, the Ever-Righteous and Most Excellent Henry Waxman was cowed, and yes, he was (and I've forgiven him long ago, especially based on his track record since then - check it for yourself), then I can see how Jay Rockefeller was cowed. And you didn't even have to be facing reelection at that time to be cowed. Look at the blistering, withering criticism that people like Byrd took, when he stood, virtually alone, speaking out against the war, in a nearly empty Senate chamber.

Not that I condone it. Few beyond Barbara Lee and Dennis Kucinich saw through it, and stuck to their guns. Even Henry Waxman caved for awhile. But he woke up early and went straight back to work. Others did likewise. Now, Jay Rockefeller is among them. I applaud that. To admit you were wrong is going a BIG DISTANCE. Look at the reaction to Richard Clarke having done so. The 9/11 families heard that one loud and clear, and responded accordingly. They are firmly at his side, and not afraid to say so, and not afraid to say why. And it makes putzes like bush and those who are now Neville Chamberlains to him (ironic, isn't it?) look even more clearly and glaringly like the complete asses they are.

And they think WE'RE the jackass party.

That's what these crap-meisters are going to go to hell for - exploiting people's fears and terrors to manipulate them into submission - so they can then go do evil, unchecked.

[yardwork]

91. Bravo! You are absolutely right! I remember it well.

[Zhade]

102. Waxman is my Rep, too.

And I gave him hell for voting for the IWR. As you said, he woke up and starting attacking the b*sh administration heavily (like demanding to know who allowed the use of forged Niger documents in the SOTU).

I remember all of the things you're describing. Here at work, I got called a Saddam-sympathizer, a fool, and told I had the same mindset as Osama bin Laden. I shot right back that b*sh was a traitor and that this was all illegal and going to make us less safe. I got laughed at by some, ignored by others.

No one's laughing anymore.

I was never cowed. When the attacks started on me, I not only fought back, I got more vocal, did more research, and was even more prepared to defend my arguments - which have so far turned out to be the right ones. I put more bumper stickers on my car, wore more controversial shirts, and sent more emails than I did before I got attacked. Small acts, maybe, but worth doing.

If I can stand up to brownshirt tactics, can't a Senator? Some did, as did Reps, so I don't have a lot of respect for those who were allegedly cowed. Not with so many deaths in Iraq now staring us in the face.

And Kerry should admit he was wrong (even if I believe he knew exactly what he was voting for, such an admission would be nice).

[Zhade]

95. Now there's a telling quote!

"I could never forgive myself if my vote helped kill thousands more Americans,"

Thousands more, eh? You mean, thousands more than the thousands who died on 9/11?

Did this guy fall for THAT bullshit? This quote seems to indicate (to me, and I confess I could be wrong) that Kind was operating from a "Iraq=9/11" mindset.

[lazarus]

22. Hey, Skittles

Just add this one to the list of asses to be kicked in the primaries once we gain power.

Also, take comfort in the fact that we're all smarter than all of these people, so we can outsmart 'em again.

[Skittles]

27. you know it Laz

whenever I see these polls showing Kerry and Bush supposedly neck and neck I have to believe either 1) we have WAY MORE stupid Americans than I thought or 2) the corporate media is lying their asses off.

[goclark]

24. Wrong Vote People

As hard as it is to say;;"I was Wrong," It is better to say that then to be stupid like BushCo and keep justifying that they are right. He is too dumb to change course no matter what new information is placed in his lap. That is what scares me about this regime. They take the Hitler approach all the way.


I would rather have someone tell me that, with with more information, they now understand that they made a mistake.

Yes, they should have known better!
99% of DU knew it was a wrong vote when they did it.
That's because we had more than a gut feeling that GWB was a lier as soon as he opened his mouth on any issue.
I must confess when I saw Colin bring out his pictures in front of the UN, I was fooled! I could not believe that he would be stupid enough to lie on an issue so critical - I was wrong.


I just refuse to believe that all of those officials would ,with out a care, lead this country to war! They should have known better but they didn't.

For every Republican that finally sees that Democrats in generally were on the right side of this issue, we should welcome them, with open arms, to our position.

Maybe, just maybe, if Democratic congress people can admit they voted incorrectly, maybe a few Brave Repubs will doi likewise.
Richard Clarke should serve as a role model to all of us. HE is a real hero.

:think:

[calimary]

77. Aw, MAN! I remember that. I, too, was a little un-nerved.

I remember that day when Colin Powell spoke at the UN. And I remember how it convinced two people I really admire to accept the view of the dark side - my husband and Barbara Boxer. Both, of course, have long since come around. Even I was a little unsettled about it. I mean, the guy goes before the UN, on national and INTERNATIONAL television - so it's before all the world that's tuning in - and makes these claims. Hangs his ass out there with his name and his reputation on it. WHY would someone commit hara-kiri like that, so publicly? It did make me stop and wonder. Didn't change my mind but it made me stop for a minute. Then I just went back online and kept reading. And knew there was no reason to stop for a minute, at all. Then it was just a matter of waiting til the lies were exposed, and trying to do my part to help that along a little. But it was a very sad day when Colin spoke. A LOT of people were convinced, just by the gravitas of HIS having done it.

And the republi-CONS KNEW THIS. Why do you think they sent him, in the first place?

[Zhade]

104. But Powell has ALWAYS been a Republican lapdog.

He first appeared on the scene as an U.S. military apologist for the My Lai massacre.

He worked with Cheney during the first Gulf War to control the media flow - to propagandize that war, an effort that no doubt paid off in the pursuit for THIS "war".

I only found out about Powell's shady past within the last few years, and I'm not a politician who lives and breathes the Washington, D.C. scene. How in the WORLD can Senators and Reps who have been working in that city for years and years not know these things about Powell?

Inconceivable, in my opinion. Powell was never a man of conscience - the fact that he was sold as such is astounding to me.

[WillyBrandt]

20. Good work, folks. Berate people who have seen the light.

If you didn't start with the premise that the Administration was utterly mendacious and dishonest, there was a case to be made for war in Iraq. The case was founded upon lies, true, and those who have the Administration the benefit of the doubt failed to see them for what they were.

This isn't a goddamn purity contest, to see who was right first. It's a game of political power, and the more who abandon the President, the more who abandon the war, the better.

Stop looking those gift horses in the mouth.

[Skittles]

28. I absolutely disagree

there was NEVER a case for war with Iraq. The Dems who voted for IWR did so in the hopes of political gain and that is the SAME reason they disavow their vote now. It was an absolute terrible thing they did and I'm sure the result weighs heavily on their minds.
NOW their speaking their consicence? They should have VOTED that way too.

[WillyBrandt]

32. That's false

There was a case for war in Iraq:

Premises:

a Saddam Hussein was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons
b Saddam would use those weapons, either in fact or theory to ends which hurt American interests

Conclusion

c Saddam must be taken out, because the alternative is just too terrible.

The argument makes sense, even if you can argue about it. The only problem is that premise a is totally bullshit, utterly false. A lot of these Senators seriously believed that (a) was true. They shouldn't have had that belief--insufficient skepticism of the Bushies, not looking in enough places for info, etc.

I do not think this is mendacity.

But more important: it DOES NOT MATTER whether these conversions are sincere or not, in terms of progressive change. (Look to progressives to seek purity of heart instead of reality of power. Sigh.) If everybody starts abandoning Bush and the war--for WHATEVER reason--that is good for those most opposed to it.

[treepig]

33. they must have know it was a packof lies in nov02

the "Saddam Hussein was on the verge of getting nuclear weapons" had already been debunked by the cia - apparently the case for or against chemical and biological WsMD was a bit more clouded, except for the fact that condiliar and colin are both on record as of feb01 stating that clinton's sanctions had worked, saddam had no WsMD, and was not a threat to his neighbors (much less to the usa "homeland")

it was a bunch of lies from the beginning, and anyone who voted for the IWR is either a stooge or a moron.

but as long as they're "liberal" i guess we should embrace them now. that way these appeasers will still be in place to "stop" mr. bush's future wars should he be (s)elected for another term.

[Skittles]

47. that's false

Saddam was never close to getting nuclear weapons; there was NEVER ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE.

[Dover]

36. ...and if memory serves.....the White House and Congress were inundated

with letters, faxes and calls from their constituents trying to convince them NOT to vote for IWR. So there weren't just a quiet few here at DU and in the public who could read between the lies.

[Zhade]

110. There was never a case for war.

Even if Hussein had tons of WMDs, that STILL would not have legitimized a preventative attack. Had the administration (which was clearly ILLEGALLY in power due to the 2000 coup) pressed for war based on an Iraqi connection to 9/11, the case would have been hard to accept, as bin Laden and Hussein hated each other, to the extent that bin Laden offered to raise 100,000 soldiers to take down Hussein during the build-up to the first Gulf War. Not only that, but attacking Afghanistan would have suddenly looked like a terrible mistake, if Hussein had been "found" responsible for 9/11.

The only possible case that could have been made would have been one to free the Iraqi people of the dictator the U.S. installed, funded, and supported. This was not the case made to the American people - even the neocons knew this wouldn't be enough to get Americans behind such an action.

So, pray tell, what case was there?

[NNN0LHI]

21. Some of the posts to this thread have my BS meter pegged

I was here during the IRW vote. There were few if any posts by anyone saying that there were absolutely Ø banned weapons in Iraq. Keep in mind that these guys had to vote even before the UN inspectors went into Iraq and found nothing. I thought they had something up to that point. Most everyone did. Don't give me that, "ooh, we all knew they didn't have no WMDs, why didn't they" crap. I actually think Bush thought there was something there too, or there would have been plans to bring some along.

Don

[frank frankly]

23. that is why I think Kerry should do the same thing as Rockefeller

we need Rummy et all to have to start answering why they cooked the intelligence.

we know how they stovepiped and bullshited everything. if kerry said it loud and clear, then maybe the media would be forced to actually focus in on the very easy reason BushCo was wrong about the war: THEY LIED.

[Skittles]

30. I always knew it was bullshit

check my posts

[NNN0LHI]

35. Do you mean bullshit as in there was nothing worth going to war over...

...like I said myself at the time? Or bullshit, Iraq was clean as a whistle and didn't have nothing? Big difference.

Don

[Skittles]

45. I said it didn't matter

it did not matter if they did or didn't; the war had NOTHING TO DO WITH WMD. And ANY thinking person should have known this.

[NNN0LHI]

48. But it did matter after all. It now appears the Bush cherry picked...

...the intelligence to scare the majority of our country into wrongly thinking we should invade Iraq, and it is now beginning to look like doing so was a huge mistake even to the most reverent flag wavers. It mattered.

Don

[Skittles]

51. what they SAID and what they DID

are two VERY different things. Yes, they used WMD to get idiots to support them but dear God it did not take a great deal of intelligence to see they were LYING.

[Sophree]

129. Mike Ruppert's theory

The elite is turning on Bush now that he's done his job (and f-d it up so badly.)

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/070103_beyond_bush_1.html

*****snip*

July 1, 2003 1600 PDT (FTW)...

BUMPING BUSH

There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush administration's criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That's it.

It is the hard record of official statements made by Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Powell on Iraq that will sink the administration, either before or after the election. These guys are horrible managers and they have really botched things up, big time - exactly as I said they would. There is no amount of spin anywhere that can neutralize this record. As FTW predicted back in March, the biggest and most obvious criminal action of the administration, a knowing lie (one of many) used to deceive a nation into war, was the administration's assertion that Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear weapons program and had recently attempted to purchase uranium from the African country of Niger...


In the coming weeks, we're going to be seeing folks coming out and coming forth with what they know, and it is going to be very embarrassing for the Bush administration.

FTW has previously noted strong signals in the form of published remarks by powerful figures such as Senator Jay Rockefeller and news stories by media powerhouses such as James Risen and Walter Pincus that quiet moves were underway to remove the Bush administration from power. In a harsh and stunning public statement to the BBC three days ago, former Bush I Secretary of State and Henry Kissinger business partner Lawrence Eagleburger smacked ol' "W" right between the eyes with a two-by-four.

*******

Notice he wrote this in July '03.

[lazarus]

49. Good point, Don

I have to admit, I was unwilling to totally claim that Iraq was clean as a whistle. I will say I always maintained that Iraq never had nukes, wasn't on the verge of nukes, and didn't have enough of a biochem warfare capacity to in any way threaten us, and that was the point that made a war silly and futile.

[jamesinca]

34. M y question is this

Why vote on something if not all the facts are in? If they don't know for certain, only guesses, about WMD being there why did they take such a light hearted approach to going to war? How come 77 of them did not bother to ask the hard questions? Did they allow this nation to go to war because they were afraid to stand up to a President with a +/- 70% approval rating?

I think it is good that Rockefeller has come out and said this for a couple of reasons, it shows that he can admit when he is wrong and it shows that he is going to once again going to back away from what he thinks is a losing position and will take up with what he thinks will be the winning team. A lack of values, just going where the wind blows. As far as Kerry goes, anybody that has read my opinions of him know I think he will destroy the Democratic party, just slower that Bush will. I will vote for Kerry to buy time for the party but I will work my butt off to run him and his ilk out of the government.

[Pastiche423]

37. "Most everyone did"

Wrong!

Check the archives dating months before the IWR vote. Very few people thought they had "something".

The majority on this board at that time, were emailing, faxing and calling their representativea daily, begging them to vote NO!

We were outraged as we followed the Senate Watch threads. On the day/night of the vote there were 19 Senate Watch threads. This was long before the inspectors were finally allowed into Irag.

It seems to me, that you have a very selective memory.

[NNN0LHI]

39. Show me one of your posts where you say there are Ø WMDs in Iraq...

...dated before the IWR vote and I will apologize. Until you provide such a thread I will consider you as being disingenuous.

Don

[Pastiche423]

63. How convenient for you that the archives are not searchable

Or did you know that already?






For six weeks leading up to the vote, I and many other long time DUers watched the Senate floor. In the Senate Watch threads we all knew there were no WMDs and stated such.

Are you calling me a liar?

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

70. As I recall

There were many people here (including me) who were against the IWR because they felt:

1. A good case for attacking Iraq had not been made by the administration

2. It would take away from the 'war on terror'

3. Any action against Iraq should be taken by the UN, not by the US

At that point, there was not solid evidence of anything either way. The administration was pushing their 'evidence' and many here felt they were lying. But claiming that we knew Iraq to be clean at that time is fallacious.

There also seemed to be the general perception that the IWR was a blank check for the administration to attack Iraq. I've heard a number of Senators disagree. At the time I thought the same way, but what happened after the IWR? The US went to the UN not straight to Iraq.

[sandnsea]

38. They're all clairvoyants

I have a very hard time with this "I knew" bullshit too. Anyone who says they "knew" there were no WMD in Iraq is as arrogant as George Bush who went to war because he "knew" Saddam was behind all the terrorism against the U.S. And that's the bottom line. George Bush and that bunch "knew" it was all Saddam and ignored any evidence to the contrary. Arrogant black and white thinking is dangerous whether it comes from the right or the left.

[treepig]

41. General Hussein Kamal - what an arrogant asshole!

his death was well deserved for making comments such as this one from 22 August 1995:

Samarra started to produce medicine with workers from Muthanna. Muthanna itself started production of pesticides and insecticides, but some of them turned out to be more difficult to produce than CW. We gave instructions not to produce chemical weapons. I don't remember resumption of chemical weapon production before the Gulf War. Maybe it was only minimal production and filing. But there was no decision to use chemical weapons for fear of retaliation. They realised that if chemical weapons were used, retaliation would be nuclear. they must have a revision of decision to start production. All chemical weapons were destroyed. I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons - biological, chemical, missiles, nuclear were destroyed.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/un/unscom-iaea_kamal-brief.htm


and although still alive, mr. powell also had the arrogance to make similar declarations on 24 February 2001

In February 2003, Powell said: "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

But two years earlier, Powell said just the opposite. The occasion was a press conference on 24 February 2001 during Powell's visit to Cairo, Egypt. Answering a question about the US-led sanctions against Iraq, the Secretary of State said:

We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/war/powell-no-wmd.htm

[sandnsea]

46. Like I said

To rigidly and arrogantly believe only one side and ignore all the other testimony and reports is just as dangerous as when George Bush does it. I'm really sick of it. I find it just as stupid as when the right does it.

[treepig]

54. a complete lack of critical thinking

is exactly wrong with this country

there are far too many people who refuse to analyze the information out there - instead they stick their heads up their asses and take the attitude, gee, the dems are saying one thing, the repubs another - who knows what's factual - it's probably all politics anyway.

wrt to the question of WsMD, why did 95% of the world not come to the conclusion that they posed a threat to anyone? i submit because they did their homework and figured out what side to "believe."

i have no idea where you're coming from when you posit that it's arrogant to believe only one side. rather, when one side has the "truth" on its side, why shouldn't this side be believed and the other side shunned? that's not arrogance, it's common sense. i'm really sick of the complete laziness of persons who just muddle along "believing" any bullshit that's run out by fox news and other propaganda arms of the gop.

[sandnsea]

57. Yes, exactly

Lazy thinking that just believes any bullshit that comes out of the Guardian or any other propaganda arm of the far-left. It works both ways. The left doesn't have the monopoly on the truth any more than the right. And it is absolutely nauseating when they pretend they do.

NOBODY KNEW in Oct 2002. You can arrogantly pat yourself on the back until you break your arm. But YOU didn't KNOW. To pretend you did is to say you're smarter than Blix, El Baradei, Annan, and all the leaders in the entire world. If you were, you wouldn't have time to be posting on an internet forum.

[treepig]

67. but it turns out that i did know

and if you took a minute to evaluate the information i present instead of insulting me, you might consider revising your slanderous statement that i employed sources such as the "Guardian or any other propaganda arm of the far-left"

one citation was from the UNSCOM/IAEA Briefing - back when scott ritter - still at the time a gung-ho republican, was involved in the running the operation.

the other citation is based on quotations directly taken from the department of state's website. i find it interesting that mr. powell is now a propaganda arm of the far-left.

and, fyi, most of the world's leaders did not buy into the bush administration's bullshit claims. oh yeah, but fiji did? well - you sure put my place!

[WhereIsMyFreedom]

72. No, it turns out that you were right

Being right and knowing are two completely different things.

[treepig]

79. the evidence was overwhelming

that iraq had no WsMD's after the first gulf war - i could spend hours citing the evidence but since fox news and mr. rumsfeld have argued to the contrary, i doubt if there's any point of going into it.

[mobuto]

92. Nonsense

Just about everybody, including the Clinton Administration, including Hans Blix, including every foreign intelligence service of significance, believed that Saddam Hussein had WMD. The question was whether there was any solid proof of this, and whether Saddam posed a threat.

Bush provided "evidence" to Congress to suggest that there was solid proof. He provided to evidence to suggest that Saddam posed a threat.

With that in mind, Congress voted to authorize the threat of force.

Knowing what they knew then, not only did that make sense, it would have been irresponsible not to authorize the threat of force.

That the evidence submitted was complete bullshit is now what needs to be addressed. The Bush Administration frankly lied to Congress - and that's where your anger should be targeted.

[treepig]

109. really?

i've been following all along - and scott ritter, hans blix (et al) have made statements (since 1998 at least) that there are WsMD that have not been accounted for.

perhaps clinton actually believed saddam had them (and used that belief to justify the murder of 500,000 iraqi children). but i'm not sure how that is relevant now - people have got to get over clinton - he and his atrocious foreign policy wrt iraq are history!!

the clearest evidence that the powers that be KNEW that there were no WsMD was that the war took place at all - there's no way that mr. bush and gang would have risked mass casualties of the scale possible from the use of even one nuclear weapon. i don't think the lack of oil in north korea is the only reason that the usa is pursuing a diplomatic solution to that mess.

[mobuto]

114. My point is that

reasonable people believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

You argued that the evidence against that Iraqi WMD was "overwhelming," and that couldn't possibly be true. And you are wrong.

The problem isn't that people mistrusted and feared Iraq, the problem is that Bush Administration manipulated intelligence information to make it seem as though Saddam posed a clear and imminent danger to the United States.

[sandnsea]

103. I read them too

And they most certainly DID NOT say there was conclusively no weapons in Iraq. And neither did Scott Ritter. And neither did any other reputable scientist or intelligence analyst. Nobody said that in Oct 2002. Nobody is now saying that they said that then. NOBODY KNEW in October 2002 that there were NO weapons in Iraq. It's your own self-important grandiosity that causes you to believe you KNEW something nobody else in the entire world KNEW.

[treepig]

113. a bit sensitive

about being on the wrong side of history as mr. sean hannity is fond of saying?

and about no one in the world knowing in the fall of 2002. to refresh you memory, a mr. saddam hussein stated quite forcefully that there were no illegal weapons. even supplied a 12,000 page report to verify this information. HE KNEW. people like you chose to not believe him - but is that really a justification for the blatant lies you post about no one in the entire world knowing? there's a huge difference between sticking one's head up one's ass and refusing to acknowledge something - and claiming that that thing cannot be known.

btw, thanks for the "reputable intelligence analyst" - that's going on my list of oxymorons pronto

[sandnsea]

120. Oh, take Saddam's word

Talk about sticking one's head up one's ass. But thanks for making my point that critical thinking is often just as lacking on the left as it is on the right.

Just believe Saddam. That's a good one.

[treepig]

124. well, it turns out he was the one telling the truth

and you and your fellow rightwingers were the ones telling the lies.

it's quite an accomplishment making saddam look like the good guy, but somehow, against all odds, you've managed to to do it in this instance.

[sandnsea]

127. No, YOU did it

You're the one saying we should have just believed Saddam, good guy that he is and all.

[treepig]

140. my point was that you were telling untruths about the situation

by saying "NOBODY KNEW in October 2002 that there were NO weapons in Iraq"

well, saddam knew - by claiming otherwise you're buying into the myth that he was just a befuddled old man who was being deceived by his underlings who had destroyed/not successfully made any WsMD.

anyhow, even if the above point was factual, there'd still be these underlings who "KNEW"

in any event i'm not claiming that saddam and his underlings could be regarded as reliable sources - i doubt if they're much more reliable than the PROVEN lears that comprise the cia/bfee/fox news cabal. consequently, one needed to turn eslewhere for information. apparently for you, turning to sources other than those echoing the bush line is unacceptable.

[mobuto]

61. You speak of a complete lack of critical thinking

and then you resort to the old argumentum ad populum - 50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong. You really sound awfull silly.

why did 95% of the world not come to the conclusion that they posed a threat to anyone?

I don't know, nor do I particularly care. The Intelligence Committee's concern was to protect the security of the United States. They were provided information that suggested that the security of the United States was indeed threatened by Iraq. And they voted accordingly. The real question is where that information came from, and why and how the Executive promoted it.

Congress is dependent on the Executive for its information. The problem is the Executive, not Congress.

[treepig]

69. did i say anything about 50 million frenchmen?

but way to go on picking up some french-bashing from the cable news networks! i haven't watched them in a couple of days and was starting to go through withdrawal symptoms . . . you're a lifesaver!

and if you're talking about an actual threat to the security of the united states - well, any claims about iraq in that context are just completely laugh-out-loud silly.

but since you were so mightily impressed by mr. powell's dog and pony show at the un, where he held up a (supposed) vial of anthrax, played mis-translated tapes, and and showed pictures of scary, scary terrorist training camps in kurdish controlled territory i suppose i should give you a break in the critical thinking category.

[mobuto]

75. French-bashing?

What the hell are you talking about? "Fifty-million Frenchmen can't be wrong" is an old expression that refers exactly to the kind of logically fallacious argument you're using - that a case is correct because a lot of people believe it. And for the record, Mr./Ms. Pig, I am not anti-French, I am French.

and if you're talking about an actual threat to the security of the united states - well, any claims about iraq in that context are just completely laugh-out-loud silly.

What do you mean laugh-out silly? The Bush Administration provided evidence to Congress that Iraq psed a threat to the United States. That's very serious stuff, and if it had been true that Iraq did pose a threat, it was our duty to preemptively attack Saddam. In retrospect, that evidence was clearly all either wrong or fabricated. And its the Administration that needs to account. But you can't blame Congress for relying on the information it was given. Sorry. Get of your sanctimonious high horse.

[treepig]

78. have you heard of consensus?

something fairly common in science, for example. different investigators independently evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion. if 95% come to one conclusion, and 5% to a different conclusion - the scientific community accepts the consensus of the 95% as being true.

similarly, if 95% of the world's population (or let's say 90%, an oft-cited number of the opposition even in a coalition member such as spain) independently reaches the conclusion that iraq's supposed WsMD are not a threat - there's some wisdom buried in there. but if you wish to dismiss it as a logically fallacious argument - well OK (another approach might have been to dismiss this collective wisdom as simply another "focus group" - but i doubt if anyone would be dumb enough to try that).

and here it is - the iraqi drone that was all set to wreak destruction on the usa:



come on - even you have to admit the humor in these bizarre claims!

[mobuto]

82. Bullshit

Public opinion tells you a lot of things, but it doesn't tell you whether Iraq poses a threat or not to the United States. This isn't a high school popularity contest.

Try reading some more about this particular logical fallacy:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

You argument reminds me of the kid who brings a pet rabit into kindergarten for show-and-tell. Kids all crowd around.

One asks, "Teacher, is that a boy rabit or a girl rabit?"

Teacher responds, "Lets take a vote."

Well you don't take votes on this kind of crap, this exactly what democracy isn't good for.

[treepig]

105. sure, be condescending about the collective wisdom of billions of people

we're not talking about grade schoolers here, we're talking about intelligent, highly informed individuals - btw, have you had many political conversations with an "average" european? (hint: they are a hell of a lot more informed than the average american).

let's consider countries where there was stong support for the war, which implies a belief in the threat of WsMD (because that's how the war was sold). from what i can tell, the only countries where there was such support were the uk, usa, and australia - what's the common feature - high media penetration by rupert murdoch.

now let's consider a few of the countries where there was strong support against the war - let's pick iran, germany, turkey, spain, canada and mexico - each of these countries gains their information from diverse, independent sources, and came to the same opinion.

so lets summarize - support for the war was generated by essentially one source - the bfee/murdoch/pnac juggernaut. support against the war was broad based and derived from independent sources - once again using the analogy to science, multiple independent verification leads to "truth" - lies from one source are generally discounted. why you wish to believe them (or at least give them some measure of credibility) is baffling.

[mobuto]

112. Again, you appeal to popularity

I have had many conversations with Europeans, some of whom I agree with and some of whom I don't. I don't know if any of them were "average" or not and once again I don't understand your case.

Why should the Senate Intelligence Committee, when evaluating whether a particular country poses a threat to the United States, care whether public opinion in any country - including in the United States - agrees with their assesment? Scientists discover an asteroid's on a possible collision course with the Earth. Do we hire Gallup to find out if its going to hit?

I agree that the case for war wasn't made to the public. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about whether Iraq posed a threat to the United States. The evidence that Senator Rockefeller saw said that it did. He acted accordingly. Opinion polls could not be less relevant. That evidence wasn't given by Rupert Murdoch, that evidence was given by the Bush Administration. And the Bush Administration, and only the Bush Administration, is responsible.

[treepig]

117. egad

first, the point wrt to europeans is that you cannot compare their thoughtful analysis of world events with that of grade school children guessing the gender of a rabbit. that's just bizarre.

second, are you telling me that the senate intelligence committee is really stupid enough to believe the lies told them? like the drone shown in my post above is really a threat to the usa - and that wasn't even the one of the more outrageous allegations - for example the two mobile weapons labs, still claimed to be for the production of biological agent by mr. cheney and even mr kay leaves open the possibility, were really for the production of hydrogen. there were documents readily accessible at that time from the british corporation that sold these trailors to iraq specifying there real use. and yet you claim that the senate intelligence committee actually believed this, and many similar attempts, bullshit?) an asteroid is completely different - its trajectory can be independently and openly verified - unlike any evidence about iraq, which upon exposure was rapidly, thoroughly, and easily debunked. so like you bring up, why wasn't the case made to the public? - once again - because the evidence was so flismy none of it could have withstood public scrutiny.

[mobuto]

125. Its the process that's being compared

I'm also not comparing Iraq to a rabbit. But its the process that's similar. When you're trying to figure out if a nation poses a threat to you, you go to experts, you look at the evidence, etc. Your idea of polling the public is just bizarre.

second, are you telling me that the senate intelligence committee is really stupid enough to believe the lies told them?

Yes. The Senate Intelligence Committee doesn't have its own spy branch. It relies on the information provided to it by the Executive Branch. If it can't rely on that information, then you've got a real problem. But the problem isn't with the Committee, its with the President.

[treepig]

142. but when the "experts" are a bunch of stooges or fools

i'd prefer to believe a well informed citizenry (which much of the world outside of the usa has).

the cia has a long history of presenting bogus, politically-motivated "intelligence" wrt iraq.

for example, consider the much-used "saddam-gassed-his-own-people-meme" - well it would seem that the cia has debunked that:


1991 CIA REPORT TOLD US GOVERNMENT THAT THE IRANIANS CARRIED
OUT THE ATTACK

The truth of the Halabja incident is in reality very different to that which Bush and his media allies push out.

The CIA's own senior political analyst during the Iran Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, who was responsible for drawing up a report for the US government on the incident, stated very firmly that the Iranians, and not the Iraqis, were responsible for the massacre of Kurds by chemicals at Halabja in 1988. Pelletiere's report was in fact published in the New York Times on 31 January 2003. (4)

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Middle_East/gassings.htm

so what's going on here? is saddam not as bad as everyone believes? or, an alternate explanation - offered by a poster here on DU with "special inside double secret" information - is that saddam's use of the gas (supplied by the reagan administration) on his own people was reflecting badly on bush/reagan. consequently, in what can only be described as a politically-motivated act, the cia came up with a report that it was actually the iranians that gassed the kurds.

in light of such information, along with the knowledge that most of the same players were involved in bush II, i would think that the senate intelligence committee has a huge responsibility to carefully vet any "intelligence" coming from these proven liars/dissemblers about iraq. you claim they have no such capabilities - if so, why even have the committee?

frankly, i still maintain that if the senate committee accepts intelligence at face value, they are not doing their duty. much of the information coming from the people you dub as "experts" is simply laughably amateurish that it reflects very very badly on these senators if they really were duped by it. basically every example that these "experts" brought forward was quickly debunked by the much-more prescient "non-experts" that you continue to deride,

for example the drone story:

http://www.augustachronicle.com/stories/031303/ira_LA0542-2.shtml

or the al-qaeda building a nuclear weapon story:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11935

(this one's really quite humerous - al-qaeda operatives were found with this article http://winn.com/bs/atombomb.html on how to build an nuclear bomb, which ultimately led to public statement by tom ridge and plenty of cable tv hysteria).

you want to trust these moronic "experts" - go ahead, i'm just thankful that (at least in some parts of the world) there are intelligent every-day citizens keeping a grasp on reality to counteract your "experts" whose only interest is to beat the wardrums, see http://www.deoxy.org/wc/wc-consp.htm

[jmcgowanjm]

65. the UN inspectors went into Iraq and found nothing

Don, the UN inspectors were in Iraq and Bush got
Annan to pull them out.

What would've happened if Blix had stayed?

Annan pulls out arms inspectors from Iraq; 
Suspends oil-for-food programme-March 17

http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030318/main1.htm

[TahitiNut]

88. It has never been about "banned weapons"

It has been about an "imminent threat" where that "threat" included NBC weaponry, particularly "N". I, along with many other DUers, took to the streets in October 2002 to protest that this rationale was based on lies. Did Iraq have missiles able to go a few kilometers further than the limits if the payload was light enough? Of course. BFD.

There's only two ways Iraq could've had WMD ... they either produced 'em or they got them from another country. If they got them from another country, then prove it by identifying the country. If they produced 'em, the industrial facilities (for production, storage, testing, disposal) would be absolutely impossible to hide. Show 'em. Neither was done. Ergo, it has been an outright lie from the get-go.

This entire discussion, both public and private, has been seeded with more red herrings than exist in all the seas of the world. One of the schools of red herrings has been the "Accounting School a la Enron". The 'logic' has been that since the destruction of some alleged weapon components have not been accounted for properly, then they must still exist. That's like saying we could spend the $3 trillion that the DoD hasn't accounted for. It's stupid.

[0007]

141. I didn't believe Saddam Hussein had WMD before we went into Iraq

based on what Scott Ritter and the UN inspectors testimony to the American people. The US attacked Iraq like it didn't process WMD, for if Iraq did have WMD, the U.S. military death would have been in the tens of thousands and perhaps more.

That fact lead me to believe that maybe the Generals knew they were fighting a toothless tiger.

Congress was deceived by the administration. End of Story.

[Zhade]

133. It wouldn't have mattered even if Hussein DID have WMDs!

That would NEVER have justified a "preventative" attack. The mere possession of WMDs, even by Hussein, would not have meant there was an imminent threat from Iraq.

We possess tons of WMDs. Should we then say that, because we have all these weapons, it's okay for the rest of the world to attack us to prevent us from someday in the future attacking them, maybe?

If we say no, yet argue that Hussein's WMDs would have been a reason to invade and occupy Iraq, then we are hypocrites.

Even if Hussein had been responsible for 9/11 - which of course he was not - that still wouldn't have justified invading and occupying Iraq. The biggest mistake with regards to "the war on terror" is the idea that waging war will end terrorism.

It won't. It will only foster more terrorism. War IS terrorism.

Terrorism should be handled as the crime it is. State sponsors of terror should be targeted, but not by waging war that murders thousands of innocent people who had the misfortune to live there.

[Sophree]

134. Especially when you openly call it "Shock & Awe."

Openly saying meant to intimidate the enemy into capitulating. That's terrorism.

I don't believe defensive war is terrorism.

[Zhade]

136. Fair enough. I'll amend it to say "terrorism happens in all war".

Even in wars of self-defense - for example, bombing Dresden during World War II.

[Sophree]

137. absolutely

Even in the civil war- when Lincoln burned Atlanta and other incidences. He realized that was the only way to end it- get those Mama's to tell their boys to stop, it's over.

[kstewart33]

26. "the Democratic-led Senate"????????

This reporter needs to get another job.

[mobuto]

29. Actually, that's technically correct

Democrats did "control" the Senate, from Jeffords' switch through the start of the 2003 session. The IWR vote was in October, 2002.

[keopeli]

40. As I recall, Bush* had the votes in the Senate wrapped up.

The reason so many Dems sided with the war powers act is that:

1 - We were just days from a general mid-term election.
2 - The Senate already had the votes to pass the measure.
3 - Dems didn't want to be anti-war or seem pro-Saddam right before an election.
4 - Bush* did not allow enough time to flesh out the real issues involved.
5 - Wellstone died in a plane crash.

This was Rove's finest moment, really. He'll always be remembered for how he moved the nation to war quickly by playing politics.

Even Kerry knew that Bush* was going to war come hell or high water. He knew that he couldn't run for President by saying that all of our military men and women were in the middle of doing the wrong thing...even if he believed it to be true.

Everyone should have known better. If millions of average americans like myself knew exactly what was going on and were marching in the streets to stop this crime, then Senators knew as well. The culprits are not the ones who were duped or out maneuvered...they are the ones who lied to initiate violence that has killed thousands and thousands of people in Iraq, including over 500 of our own souls.

Keo

[yardwork]

68. keo, I agree with you.

Americans could stop this blatant election politics by paying more attention to real information and not getting their opinions from the spinners.

[ButterflyBlood]

123. Wellstone died AFTER the vote

n/t

[Dover]

43. Why did Dems continue to vote to funnel billions into the Pentagon budget

if they are so against this war and the people leading it?

[JoFerret]

44. WP headline: Clarke book reignites Iraq debate

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28976-2004Mar27.html

[calimary]

89. Snip from that article:

National security adviser Condoleezza Rice, in an interview with network correspondents Wednesday, said, "The president asked if Iraq was complicit. Anybody should have asked whether Iraq was complicit given our history with Iraq." But, she added, Bush was told by CIA Director George J. Tenet before they went to Camp David the weekend after the attacks "there was no evidence of that."

SO WHY THE FUCK DID HE KEEP PUSHING IT THEN, CONDI? HUH???????? AND WHERE WERE YOU WHEN MISS ACADEMIA BRILLIANT SUPERBRAIN WAS SUPPOSED TO BE ON TOP OF THESE THINGS, HUH?????????????? ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL? AGAIN??????????

[sleipnir]

58. Too late for 600 Americans and me.

Nice of you to apologize now, a lot of good it will due to the thousands wounded and the hundreds dead. Only the self-promoting voted YES on that resolution, as a matter of political expedidency. Saying you're sorry doesn't get you off, Jay.

[mzmolly]

76. I would venture to guess many of the senate feels this way today.

:(

[jmcgowanjm]

80. SenJohn D. Rockefeller IV-Senate Floor-Iraq Resolution

Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
on the Senate Floor
On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002

http://www.senate.gov/~rockefeller/news/2002/flrstmt0102002.html

Use your browser's back button to return to Senator Rockefeller's Webpage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statement of Senator John D. Rockefeller IV
on the Senate Floor
On the Iraq Resolution
October 10, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons."

Read this BS speech and tell me Rockefeller
didn't know what was going on then and now.

[mobuto]

83. Rockefeller didn't know what was going on

He was fed bogus information and he responded to it in good faith, acting on the assumption that it was real. It wasn't. The problem is with the Bush Administration which lied to him, just as it lied to every other American.

[jmcgowanjm]

96. I was about to say I agree w/ you Mobuto

But the statement-"Rockefeller didn't know what was going on"-
just rubs me wrong. I mean, growing up in Arkansas
w/ Winthrop Rockefeller (his son is LtGov now), I can't
buy it.

You're talking about the richest family in the world, except
for the Waltons(also in Arkansas).

I pass the Rockefeller Estates on top of
Mt. PetitJean (gorgeous) on my way to Little Rock
(I think the Rockefellers pioneered the concept of
buying a mountain/land and then having everything
surrounding their estate turned into a state
park.)

If the Rockefellers don't know(think Exxon/Chase/Federal
Reserve) then they know the ones who do.

Rockefeller says Iraq's weapons should have been found by now

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/053103_wmd.html

But at least the Rockefellers have a NoblesseOblige attitude
and a penchant for taking care of states they call home.

[mobuto]

126. Rockefeller may be rich

and he may have contacts all over the world, but that doesn't mean he has his own spy agency. When the National Security Council says the evidence of a security threat is clear, its awful difficult for a Senator, even a Rockefeller, to disagree.

[NNN0LHI]

143. I don't get it Mobuto

Of course Rockefeller, Kerry, and myself had doubts about the crap we were all being fed. You and I had argument after argument about it as I recall right here on this board. Some were rather bitter I must confess. But you and I had no responsibility for even one American death. We didn't have to answer to anybody, so our opinions were meaningless in the grand scheme of things. That was not the case for Rockefeller, Kerry, and other Dem's who had to vote on this not knowing what Bush and his minions actually knew to be the truth. Or had up their sleeve. Had they all voted against this and just one US plane had been shot down patrolling in the "no-fly" zone and a couple of pilots were killed shortly after that vote there would have been hell to pay. People don't think about this stuff. Thats why we are not politicians I think?

Don

[jmcgowanjm]

144. yes, Rockefeller was doing a CYA manuever

But, well here's 2 articles giving the flavor of the
times.

This was the time when Zahn was telling the world that
Scott Ritter was drinking Saddam's KoolAid.
http://truthout.org/docs_04/020804C.shtml

And this article on what later turned out to be NYTimes
Judith Miller/Chalabi misinfo, the Beginning of the
Niger/Cheney/Wilson/Plame Affair, and Scott Ritter's
most heroic stance.

http://cgi.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

All the lies told by all the President's MenWoman

When I posted that I almost agreed w/ you, Mobuto,
what I should have said is that Rockefeller was insulating himself from
the negative fallout from the IraqWar that's rapidly comin'
down.

Rockefeller knows, and he has given this Admin
enough rope to hang themselves with.
I think he was planning that far ahead.

[jmcgowanjm]

86. Headlines from October2002- commondreams

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/october2002.htm

Published on Monday, October 7, 2002 in the Seattle Times

McDermott Accuses Bush of Plotting to be Emperor


http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1007-03.htm

Some more flavor of the times:

http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=942

[Carolina]

81. Jeez, Jay the Wimpazoid

should simply have listened to his venerable, fellow W-VA colleague, Robert Byrd. Sorry, but he doth protest TOO LATE. Hindsight is always 20/20 but so-called leaders, so-called members of the opposition party should have done their fucking homework BEFORE they voted.

Go suck a lump of coal, Jay. You and so many others have blood on your hands. While we here at DU pleaded, emailed, called, wrote, protested ... you and your ilk swallowed Bush's lies hook, line and sinker. And you did so when their was NO reason to believe him, when his credibility had already been shown to be lacking.

[KeepItReal]

101. Roger that!

<EOM>

[hackwriter]

87. I knew. Why didn't he?

We all knew the so-called intelligence was bulls**t. How come these guys didn't?

[Tommy]

99. geez

i hate those stupid republicans. 13000 dead iraqs good people like us in many ways. 14000 wonded gi s and six hundred dead or there will be in a week or two and republicans think it s ok? what evil little creeps they are not having time to think or to lazy. how hi is the stack is you pile 600 dead gi s. maybe four storys high? my God for nothing what a creep bush is.

[jmcgowanjm]

116. Google: Rockefeller+Conspiracy/ Only Duponts, Kennedys

more closely linked to more conundrums.

And you don't hear of the Rockefellers dying in
mysterious plane crashes or assassinations.

Well, except for this:

Father Peters didn't say whether the killers had also eaten Rockefeller.

http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/eddesk.nsf/All/FE9E6A123DAFFEF5CA256A6F00222C9E

or

Megan Marshak was, in fact, underneath Nelson Rockefeller when he died.

http://www.ishipress.com/marshak.htm

[mobuto]

118. Ah, but since Rockefeller Conspiracy

results in only 33,000 Google matches while Jewish Conspiracy results in 270,000 Google matches, I assume you believe that the International Jewish Conspiracy is 8.18 times more nefarious than the International Rockefeller Conspiracy?

[jmcgowanjm]

145. No, that would be the Rothschild Conspiracy-12,100 hits

which will always trump the Jewish
Conspiracy.

And BTW- IMHO, A good conspiracy would only
bring a few thousand hits.

So, in this case, the Jewish Conspiracy would be a
red herring.

The Federal Reserve was created as a private
corporation and remains so to this day. Its stock is
owned by only a few 'families', via their control of
their banks. Further, these families clearly obain great
personal financial benefit from this unique benefit -
at little initial investment.

Mullins demonstrates that while several American
'Robber Barons' amassed billions of wealth, through
the establishment of the Federal Reserve as a
private corporation, he also demonstrates that a
single predominant banking family ('Rothschild's')
truly 'owns' and controls these banks, and the
Federal Reserve. This same family also owns the
Federal Reserve banks for England, France, Germany,
Italy, and The Netherlands.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0965649210/103-4635669-5239835?v=glance

[remfan]

111. Thank you, Jay

Flame me, or not -- I don't really care --- he's my junior senator and this means something to me. I sent him numerous e-mails before the vote imploring him to vote against it, and true to form he sent me a very long letter explaining why he would vote for it, and as much as I disagreed with him, I couldn't fault him for voting for the IWR - because I believe to this day that the majority of the Democrats that voted in favor did so because they had faith that the POTUS wouldn't lie to the country in such a blatant manner. I knew they were wrong to trust him, but I cannot, and will not, fault them for the vote. He never made a big deal about it, never tried to use his vote as a patriotic weapon, and didn't flag wave like Lieberman and Gephardt.

I've watched Jay carefully since that vote and I've seen him grow more and more angry about what's happened. And unlike most of you, I know what Jay Rockefeller is like when he's pissed off - I worked in state government when he was governor. He's someone I want in my corner.

He was one of the Democrats that fought hard to get the investigation into the pre-war intelligence, and I feel certain that would not have happened if not for his tenacity. He was also the senator that called that outstanding public hearing with the former intelligence officials. And his work for veterans is simply heroic.

Thank you, Jay.

[LiviaOlivia]

115. Here's another "Thank You"

I believe in forgiveness. Why? Because it's democratic. Let the Pol Pot or Robespierre types wail away on idealogical purity. I say to be a true-believer in democracy one will always welcome transformation.

[wryter2000]

119. Good for him

I'm definitely going to have his baby. :loveya:

[David Zephyr]

121. Senator Dianne Feinstein Has Already Said The Same Thing.

The only thing is, there's nothing new now regarding the Iraq War that wasn't already known when they voted for the IWR.

That said, I'm glad that U.S. Sen. Jay Rockefeller regrets his vote to authorize a war against Iraq.

The coming, inevitable full civil war in Iraq should make everyone who supported the war...regret it.

[Sophree]

131. Honestly

I think they ALL knew it was BS. Kerry knew he would never win the Presidency w/ a No vote. I believe him when he says he thought they would go in with the Int'l comm. and a UN mandate.

Now that the job is done, I agree w/ Ruppert- the elite is turning on *. See FTW snips above. post 130

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=448111&mesg_id=449357&page=

[SoCalDem]

128. If WE knew...why were THEY fooled??

They were still playing "nice" . in hopes that if they gave the snarling doggie (Bush) their llittle sister to chew on, he would not bite them..

Sis was a snack, and he did indeed bite them too.. They were foolish and thought no one would notice..

The most dangerous appeasement going on is/was the democratic congresspeople/senators' actions regarding Prince Doofus..

The WHOLE country knows that he did not really win the 2000 election...that he had ZERO mandate...(50% did not care and the other 50% saw how little it mattered to the democrats in charge, so they gave up)

Congress was so eager to "look nice", that they GAVE him the keys to the kingdom, and NOW they are having second thoughts?? Well....DUH !!!!

He would have told them ANY lie to get the approval to attack Iraq..Without the treasury-draining "war", he could not accomplish what he needed to..

He has effectively "set up" the next democratic president. If he loses in the fall, Kerry willl have a very high hill to climb.. A nearly bankrupt, unemployed, depressed, and divided country... a couple of "hot" wars where leaving is not a very good solution, and staying is even worse...Broke states who are begging for money, crumbling infrastructure as far as the eye can see, and half of the country set on his destruction... Why would ANYONE want to be president?? :(

[Sophree]

130. Ive often asked myself that same question.

"Why would ANYONE want to be president??"

I wouldn't wish it on anyone. I do think Kerry is well-equipped to deal w/ the situation, better than anyone save the Big Dog.

[Sophree]

135. More on Sen. Rockefeller

Leading the Nigergate investigation-

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0713-03.html

Published on Sunday, July 13, 2003 by National Public Radio
Sen. Jay Rockefeller: WMD Flap 'Far From Over'
Democrat Calls Rice 'Dishonorable' for Blaming CIA Director

by Steve Inskeep

In a conversation with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) -- the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- says the White House unfairly made CIA director George Tenet the scapegoat for faulty intelligence on Iraq.

Rockefeller also told Inskeep that National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice "had to have known" a year before Bush's 2003 State of the Union address that intelligence claiming Iraqi agents were attempting to purchase uranium from African officials was bogus.

Referring to recent White House and CIA statements meant to defuse the controversy, Rockefeller said, "I think it raises more questions than it settles, and I think it's far from over.

"I cannot believe that Condi Rice... directly, from Africa, pointed the finger at George Tenet, when she had known -- had to have known -- a year before the State of the Union."

****end snip***

Calling the * admn. what they are- dishonorable.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0713-03.htm

****SNIP*****

Published on Sunday, July 13, 2003 by National Public Radio
Sen. Jay Rockefeller: WMD Flap 'Far From Over'
Democrat Calls Rice 'Dishonorable' for Blaming CIA Director

by Steve Inskeep

In a conversation with NPR's Steve Inskeep, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) -- the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee -- says the White House unfairly made CIA director George Tenet the scapegoat for faulty intelligence on Iraq.

Rockefeller also told Inskeep that National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice "had to have known" a year before Bush's 2003 State of the Union address that intelligence claiming Iraqi agents were attempting to purchase uranium from African officials was bogus.

Referring to recent White House and CIA statements meant to defuse the controversy, Rockefeller said, "I think it raises more questions than it settles, and I think it's far from over.

"I cannot believe that Condi Rice... directly, from Africa, pointed the finger at George Tenet, when she had known -- had to have known -- a year before the State of the Union."

*****

[jmcgowanjm]

146. Good, and this-timeline of CheneyNigerWilsonSOTU

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/justify/2003/0811chronology.htm

While this is going on Above Board.

Top Bush officials push case against Saddam

September 8, 2002 Posted: 8:46 PM EDT (0046 GMT)

http://cgi.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/08/iraq.debate/

[Sophree]

138. More on the Neocons being reined in

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/041603_public_spank.html

A Public Spanking for Bush


The very next day DoD Secretary Don Rumsfeld bluntly stated at his daily press briefing that the U.S. had no intentions of invading Syria next or doing immediate battle anywhere else in the region. In a separate story I will describe how Europe and OPEC may be leaving Bush no other options. This warning from Eagleburger is one of the harshest public rebukes from a political ally I have ever seen. It is a reminder that the real power is not - and never has been - in Washington. – MCR]

[peacetalksforall]

147. Kerry, Clinton, Dashle (not sure about Shurmer, Edwards) say that we

should finish the job. Ladies and Gentlemen - they don't say how...this war is finishing us off financially to say nothing about the horrible maiming and deaths.

They should tell us how we could win. If they're so knowledgeable about the situation after a trip to Iraq or as part-believers in the Bush-cabal, PNAC authored takeover of a country - they they should tell us what their plan is.

I'm disgusted with their initial decision - because the people here on this list figured out the scam of it all many, many months before they voted.

I think these Senators and Congresspeople are hopeless.

Vietnam redux. And we were so much wiser this time. For nothing.

[peacetalksforall]

148. All those finger-in-the-wind Senators and Congresspeople are sorry

- big deal.

[Ravy]

149. Well, it *is* their job to represent their constituency...

so as new information presents itself changing positions is not only expected, it should be applauded.

This doesn't mean a Senator or Representative should vote with every poll... they are privy to much more information than the general public is, and spend more time thinking over most issues than you or I do. But, when the information they have now varies so much from what they were given before that vote, I would more readily condem politicians who DID NOT change their stance on supporting the war.

Kerry has said the war was a mistake. He also defended and took responsibility for his vote given the information he had at the time.

[peacetalksforall]

153. I see you have only posted about 145 messages. Perhaps

you weren't around in the eight to twelve months preceding the invasion - when through the posts here, it was implicitly transparent what the cabal and PNAC were up to - the motives, the agenda. There wasn't any reason for 'our leaders' to vote the way they did other than the madness of fear of votes fueled by the fear of patriotism. Bush won. Some Congresspeople and Senators saw what we saw here on this list and voted against the killing. There is no justification for those who lost to Bush for not having a credibility reader or some guts. They chose their legacy. They had months to learn. They had some apparently stupid manuever they were following. Yeah only 600 dead so far - maybe 1500 limbs, a few minds, some wrecked immune systems, some future baby problems, some eyesight or hearing and the devestation of a country and the lives of many innocent people - not the exiles who are being nicely paid off by your tax dollars.

Oh yeah - they also contributed to the escalation of hate against us.

We're supposed to forget?

Do we keep a check list of those who apologize like Rockefeller and only forgive those who also apologize, if we can?

[LoneStarLiberal]

155. There's Something To Be Said For Representation

I'd back off the invective a bit on this one...I've seen people who post here only a handful of times who have a much better grasp of electoral politics than people who post thousands. And the opposite is true as well.

Whether what *we* think here means anything to a Senator who maybe hears something from one of his or her staffers about what the folks at DU think, it's still all relative to what proportion of us are in that particular Senator's constituency. As I doubt there are too many of us here from WV, Ray is actually correct in my opinion: Representatives and Senators are elected to represent their constituents, not those of the digital world of the Free Republic and Democratic Underground.

When I send letters and emails to Representatives and Senators from my state, particularly my Rep and either Senator, I get a written response. When I sent letters and emails to Representatives and Senators not of my state, I hear nothing back. Why? Because I'm not a constituent! What I have to say means NOTHING to them. What I have to say DOES mean something to my rep and senators, however.

Whatever we may believe here about Iraq, the environment, Medicare, or any other issue, I don't think it's a valid argument to deconstruct someone for pointing out the obvious: If Rockefeller heard from his constituents that he should suppor the President (something not too wild considering his home state and the time of the vote), then we need to point the finger at his constituents and at him instead of treating Representatives and Senators as if they always act autonomously from their constituents' wishes.

[peacetalksforall]

159. Sorry, you made a good case, but I just can't bare the killings

I feel there is no excuse for this lousy economy -

I feel there was no excuse for this vote.

They could have educated their constituencies with the same amount of words they used to say why they voted for the killing.

Were Byrd, Wellstone, Kucinich, and all the other good Senators and Congresspeople that safe with theirs?

I've always cut the Dem representatives slack in the past because I thought they had a plan. I stayed silent because I thought I would find out what their plan and strategy was. I'm waiting. And not to repeat it all over again, but we know what we ended up with. This war is going to devastate us.

This was not just your everyday vote.

[LoneStarLiberal]

160. Naivety and Blue Dogs

I understand your frustration and anger with the House and Senate Democrats.

I'm not ready to write off all those who voted for the IWR. I do think that there are some who honestly did what their constituents thought was correct and what they thought was correct based on the lies and deceit that they were given as "information" by the government. I do not think that these elected officials could fathom what those of us who already saw understood to be rampant lies, groundless agendas, and full scale corporate whoring by the Bush administration.

Are they guilty? Yes. But in my mind guilty of being incredibly naive. If they show now that they are no longer naive by standing up to any more BS, then I'm ready to cut them some slack.

As for the Blue Dog Coalition types, fuck them all and their patron, Zell Miller. If they don't vote with the Party and do vote for President Cornelius' budget-busting, freedom-trading, poor-hating agenda items, they can line up to fuck off as far as I am concerned. There's all the difference in the world between being a Blue Dog DEMOCRAT and being a surrogate REPUBLICAN WHORE for President Cornelius.

Where this line is drawn is where we differ. Although I do not agree with lumping all the IWR yes-votes in, I do understand and appreciate your point of view.

That's my distinction: Being naive versus being calculating.

[goforit]

150. Bravo!!!....The beginning of a long healing process!

Better now or never!!!

We need to get to the truth of the matter and work on
repentence for decades to come.

If we don't, we will experience decades of miserable hardships.
It's is just plain Karma and mothernature,
all religions aside.

Thankyou Sen. Rockefeller!!!

Now if Sen. Bob Kerry and the rest of the blind men would step
forward, we could make some progress in morality.

[lebkuchen]

151. Jay, you also said last summer there was no morale problem in the army

A few weeks after your trip with John Warner, who also noted no morale problem, Stripes reported in its survey that there definitely WAS a morale problem, and that easily a third of those surveyed had no intention of reenlisting, w/nearly half not believing the party-line as to why they were in Iraq in the first place.

Jay, you are one of the reasons the democratic party is considered by top US intellectuals (like Noam Chomsky) to be only slightly better than the GOP.

You're rich. Why do you cling to your political position? Give it to somebody more worthy. Your attempt to feign ignorance at this point is futile.