I'm not sure I blame the Dem senators who "trusted" Bush's info

[chimpy the poopthrower]

Bear with me here. A lot of DUers are saying that the Dems should have known that Bush was lying on Iraq because, after all, even we knew that the administration couldn't be trusted. But do we really want to get to a place where members of Congress assume that the President of the U.S. is lying? (And no, I don't consider him the *legitimate* President, but for all purposes, he is.) I don't see how the government can even function if Congress can't rely on the intelligence it is given. That Bush broke that trust is not the fault of Congress. On the other hand, there was some information that was common knowledge if only you dug deep enough in the media to find it. So I don't know. But I sure wouldn't like to get into the situation where, for example, a Democratic president presents intelligence info and a Republican congress refuses to accept it. Wasn't that what happened with Sudan?

[demnan]

1. I'm sorry but I must disagree

The Congress is the body in our Government who declares war. They surrendered this right when they gave Bush permission to go to war. They had the power, they abdicated it. They passed the Patriot Act. They are accountable for the stupid things they did. They were voted into office to use their minds, not trust the President. Their role is to balance the power that the President has, not to surrender to it.

[mike_c]

4. agreed, and furthermore...

...Congress owes their constituents a healthy scepticism about matters of major national importance. *I* knew Bush was lying, or at least I was convinced that he was-- why did one of my Senators support his call for war authorization, in direct conflict with the wishes of the majority of her constituents, without providing any justification beyond the weak and already flimsy argument made by the WH?

[caledesi]

26. Yes MikeC, it's very simple if "common" people like you and me

know it was BS, then why didn't the Dems? Because they were AFRAID of losing their constituents!

[Classical_Liberal]

29. Furthermore they continue to trust Chimpy with Syria

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=169069

Only four congress people voted against Phase II in the PNAC plan for world domination.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

2. How about Dem. governors who "believed" Bush's info?

Russert: ...and I’ll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, “I would be surprised if didn’t have chemicals and biological weapons.”
Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president.
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

[HFishbine]

22. Partial Quotes are Disengenous

and a tactic of the weak.

Russert: ...and I’ll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, “I would be surprised if didn’t have chemicals and biological weapons.”


Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration’s saying wasn’t so. We don’t know why that is.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. Here's more context. And it doesn't change the meaning of what Dean said

Russert: Let me turn to Iraq, and this is what you said in April. “We’ve gotten rid of , and I suppose that’s a good thing.” “Suppose”?
Dean: Here’s the problem. We don’t know whether in the long run the Iraqi people are better off, and the most important thing is we don’t know whether we’re better off. This president told us that we were going to go into Iraq because they might have—they had atomic weapons. That turned out not to be so. The secretary of Defense told us that he knew where there were weapons of mass destruction around Tikrit and around Baghdad. We’ve been in control of Iraq for 50 days. We haven’t been able to find any such thing.
Russert: But you also said...
Dean: So...
Russert: ...and I’ll show it to you. You said in January, Governor, “I would be surprised if didn’t have chemicals and biological weapons.”
Dean: Oh, well, I tend to believe the president. I think most Americans tends to believe the president. It turns out that what the president was saying and what his administration’s saying wasn’t so. We don’t know why that is. So...
http://stacks.msnbc.com/news/912159.asp

Dean believed Bush's info. That's what he is saying here and quoting the entire interview won't change that.

As is confirmed in his statement on the Bush’s decision to send U.S. military troops into war against Iraq, March 18:

Tonight, for better or worse, America is at war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past 6 months, have expressed deep concerns about this President’s management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.
http://blog.deanforamerica.com/archives/000395.html

[AP]

3. And imagine if there were a terrorist attack (inevitable) after they voted

no. What if the public pressed them to answer why they voted no in light of the evidence and their reply was, "well, we thought it was all lies"?

[Forkboy]

5. Then they let political expedience

lead to thousands of innocent people being killed.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. AP's scenario hardly qualifies as political expedience

If I were fed info in a secret security session and had to choose between my suspicion that Bush is a liar and that the info might just be true, I'd really have to consider my vote long and hard since the well being of a lot of people whether from my district or not would be affected.

[AP]

13. Not only that, but if you believe in LIHOP, you'd have to be scared of

what Republicans would have done to punish a No vote. If you're a LIHOP'er, you'd have to bet that something worse than 9/11 would have happend after a no vote.

Not that I'm claiming to be a LIHOPer in this post, but I think a lot of people for whom this is a sin qua non issue are LIHOPers, and it's hypocritical to not take that into consideration when evaluating what the Democrats should have done.

Would you want the republicans to stand down on defense, and perhaps allow a dirty bomb to detonate in downtown Chicago over Iraq?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

21. Exactly. Although I don't summarily dismiss all conspiracies

I do find it humorous that those who rely on conspiracy theories the most never use that same logic when considering other opinions in which their own heels tend to be dug in.

For example, Anthony Sutton a former Hudson insider has reported extensively on Skull and Bones, but given he is a "former" Hudson insider, how do we know he isn't a deliberate and willful misinformer?

[Monte Carlo]

6. Exactly. OR, if Iraq actually had WMD's ready and waiting...

... then a NO vote on the Iraqi resolution would put the entire party into danger. Like it or not, Bush has the bully pulpit from which he can dictate the terms of debate in this nation, and the Democrats would have been fools not to think strategically.

[el_gato]

8. OR if they are sellout scumbags

more concerned with political expediency than truth

which is the very crux of the problem

[Monte Carlo]

15. What, now the truth matters?

Because at the time, things were certainly not as clear as they are now.

I really don't think they're sellout scumbags. What I think is that the war in Congress over the war in Iraq was over before it was even started. Things are not as easy as a straight yes/no vote.

[calm_blue_ocean]

19. Disagree for three reasons:

1. If there was a WMD attack by Iraq, the entire party would have been in danger whichever way Democratic Congresspeople voted on the resolution.

2. Burden of proof when going to preemptive war. In the Gulf War, the first president Bush said that Iraq did not have a valid claim to the territory of Kuwait. It was okay to believe him on this because Iraq had started hostilities by invading Kuwait. Conventional war situation -- okay to give president much benefit of the doubt.

Preemptive war is a new thing. If you are going to start an unprovoked war then you better be really, really sure that the attacked country is doing the things that justify the unprovoked attack. The burden of proof should have been much, much higher in 2002 than in 1991. Much less room for trust in a preemptive war setting because you are the one starting the shooting.

btw, I personally think preemptive war is pretty much always immoral and a bad idea from a pragmatism perspective, too.


3. Political risk:

First, political risk is part of a good Congressperson's job. Sometimes you need to be a statesperson and not get all caught up in unwise populist fervor. Sometimes it costs a leader his or her job in the short run. However, it is better to rule wisely than to walk around with your finger constantly in the wind, especially when the issue is a really big one like war.

Second, there were other political risks besides the risk of a WMD strike from Iraq. There was the possibility of a nuke strike from North Korea. There was the possibility that Israel could have decided that late 2002 was a good time to take over Syria. These are two examples of events that (in hindsight at least) were more likely than a WMD strike by Iraq. These are two examples of events that would have cast the Iraq War resolution in a bad light had either of these events come to pass before the Iraq War itself. In other words, even if Democrats were justified in focussing on re-election at a time when such weighty matters were being decided, the pro-Resolution Democrats did not really evaluate the risks properly. They certainly did not properly account for the risk that the Iraq War would turn out badly and that they would therefore lose political standing over the long run (eg, 2004).

[msmcghee]

9. There you go.

They knew Bush* was going to do it anyway. The pukes picked up several seats during Clintons first term because some dems opposed Gulf War I. They pounded us with that and tarred all Dems as weak on defense - one of their favorite memes.

So when Bush* said he had the evidence and couldn't release the details for security reason - that gave the Dems their cover.

Now it's rather ironic that because some Dems took advantage of that cover - they are getting trashed more by the anti-war left than they ever would have by the RW had they opposed the resolution.

Those who did oppose it are looking rather smart right now - and because of the disaster in Iraq the pukes can't use it against them. Oh well, they probably knew if for some reason their attack dogs couldn't go after them - ours would gladly take over.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. You got it

which is why McCain rightly pointed out that the (P)resident deserved a united backing from both sides of the aisle.

[el_gato]

11. People here didn't just assume the bush gang were liars

lot's of research went into finding out the facts
why couldn't these congress members do the same?

[welshTerrier2]

12. You're Missing the Key Point

it's not about blaming those who "trusted" bush's info ...

the right question to ask is what position on the invasion have these Dem senators taking once the truth became widely known?

if votes to support the invasion of Iraq were cast on the legitimate belief that there was an imminent threat to the U.S., so be it ... but now that it is clear that there was, and is, no imminent threat, we have no right to continue the occupation of Iraq ...

this is not to argue that we don't have a responsibility to help rebuild the country ... but that could be done more effectively without a U.S. military presence ... the U.S. military is nothing but a symbol of opposition and occupation ... there can never be peace in Iraq with American troops remaining on Iraqi soil ...

any money we spend there will either line the pockets of Halliburton, Bechtel and other multi-national corporations or will be squandered on projects that the Iraqi opposition will never let stand ...

we need to turn the operation over to the U.N. as soon as possible ... the blame I would assess would be for those Democrats who continue to support funding of this madness ...

[Devils Advocate NZ]

14. Here is my take:

Checks and Balances.

Probably one of the most important roles of each of the branches of government is to act as a "check and balance" against the others. Congress should ALWAYS question the President's decisions and proclamations, if only to ensure that the President does not become a dictator.

If Congress does NOT question the president, then what point is there in having it? Why not just have a President and do away with Congress altogether?

It surprises me that as a non-American I should be one of the first to point this out, but perhaps a bit of clarity comes with distance?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. they did question, and they got "answers"

fabricated though they may have been.

BTW clarity comes more from hindsight than anything.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

18. Bull...

"Questioning" involves more than just asking the President to show trumped up intelligence reports.

It also involves looking at all the same sources we looked at and came to the conclusion that Bush was lying. Hell if the public info was as blatantly wrong as it was, how could you trust the stuff that Bush was NOT willing to make public?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. "trumped up" intelligence

can only be proven to be so after the fact.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

28. Not at all...

Take the Niger Uranium case... As soon as someone actually investigated the claims rather than just take them at face value, they were blown out of the water. As were the Aluminium tubes and, if they had waited for the UN inspections to finish, every other claim made by Bush.

[LevChernyi]

16. demonizing Iraq is and has been a bipartisan affair

These lies didn't start with Bush although it's comforting to think they did.

[Brian Sweat]

23. So what if they knew he was lying. They weren't going to defeat

the resolution anyway. If they had voted against it at the time, the would have taken a huge beating in the press. By voting for it, they got political cover and now that Bush's lies have been exposed they can blame it all on him.

[Justice]

33. Maybe They Couldn't Have Defeated It; But they Could Have Made it Better

When Gephardt stood next to Bush in the Rose Garden and said he supported the resolution, he effectively shut down the discussion over the resolution. Even if people were willing to give the president the benefit of the doubt - what was wrong with discussion when lives (ours and Iraquis) were at stake?

If there had been more discussion in Congress about the resolution, we likely would have had a better resolution - with more definition, with more clarity - and certainly would have forced the administration to go on record about the costs, the timing and the war and post war plan.

That is why I can never support Gephardt for President.

[Brian Sweat]

35. That's you take on the situation. There's no evidence that the

Democrats could have influenced the wording of the resolution.

[Justice]

37. No Evidence Because Gephardt Shut Down the Discussion

My point is that because of Gephardt, we didn't even have a chance to discuss it. Never mind just the resolution, how about discussion to influence the hearts and minds of the American people?

[mitchum]

24. Being a big fan of "The Prince", I like to think that the Dem senators...

gave Bush the rope he needed to hang himself. The general electorate will blame only Bush for the quagmire.

[David Zephyr]

25. The Public Had the Same Information and We Weren't "Misled".

The African uranium story was debunked the very day that Bush mentioned it in his SOTU speech. We debunked it here at the DU. Check the archives.

The special "intelligence" presented by Colin Powell to the U.N. was immediately, and I mean immediately, debunked publicly as plagiarized material from a ten year old student's essay lifted from the internet. We debunked it here at the DU. Check the archives.

The ominous "drone" that Colin Powell spoke of turned out to be little more than a weedwacker motor on a balsa wood plane. This was debunked immediately in public and here at the DU. Check the archives.

The assertations that Iraq and bin Laden's crowd were in cahoots was disproven over and over again in public.

There was no material that could have convinced Democrats to support the War in Iraq. None. But there was amazing cowardice and fear of being labeled nonpatritotic right before the midterm elections.

For months upon months, I have called upon John Kerry's supporters here to have their candidate explain HOW he was "misled" by Bush as he claims. Where is the evidence of what "misled" him? Where?

They are not off the hook on their participation in the foolishiness of this war.

They should be blamed.

[Jacobin]

27. You weren't here last fall and winter

This board was bubbling with information from all sources indicating the invasion was a pre-text and a crime.

Hell five of Smirky's father's five head honchos wrote op-ed pieces in papers warning against it.

All they had to do was open their fucking eyes.....or read the emails and faxes we sent to them by the millions, or watch and listen to the millions who marched against this insanity.

Nope. Not buying it.

They decided to be on what they thought was the "popular" side of the issue rather than doing what was right. And it is kicking them in the ass, just as it should

Fuck any congresscritter who supported this bullshit.

[sendero]

32. yes...

... and if the senate winds up with a 68 seat majority as a result, so be it.

[Dover]

30. I recommend reading this thread for starters.......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=539573&mesg_id=539573

Almost ALL wanted this war. Lieberman is just the only one to admit it.

[Justice]

31. The Point is Bush Broke the Trust

I agree with you. My theory is this -

-- some people just believe everything Bush says no matter what (35%).

Some people (elected or not) believed in the office of the president, that the President wouldn't lie about such things and thus believed Bush (30% or more). The mushroom cloud statement, the tubes, the 45 minutes - people thought why would the president say such things if they weren't true - even within my own extended family people bought this, they were scared, it was an emotional reaction not a logical reaction - emotional particularly for those that live in NYC and watched the smoke from the towers for weeks thru their windows)

Others (35%), like many DUers did not believe in Bush, and thus were not willing to believe anything he said.

Remember at one point, those in favor of the war were polling at close to 70%.

The 30% group want to believe in the office of the president. They were among those upset at Clinton because he did what he did in the oval office - they were willing to listen to bush (whether or not they voted for him) because he was "a good man" a "christian man" aka one who does not lie. Frankly, these are the same group that we need to bring over - but not by tellng them they were stupid to believe bush - but by gently but firmly helping them to see they were duped. I do this every day,and believe me, it works.

[treepig]

34. let's see, are the Dem senators

incompetent? if not, why couldn't they have dug up condi's and powell's videotaped, pre-9-11 statements that saddam had no wmd's?

stupid? perhaps, but if 95% of the world wasn't fooled by the fake evidence, are they really in the bottom 5% in cognitive abilities? kinda a scary thought.

pandering to their constituents? did they think they had to be tough of defense to be re-elected, even to the point of killing thousands of innocent people? in this case, they're not worthy of the name "leader"

complicit? most likely, as pointed out in this thread, the demonization of saddam/iraq has been a thoroughly bipartisan affair over the past 10 years or so.

[quaker bill]

38. I agree on the general concept

That an elected President should get the benefit of the doubt....

That being as it may, Bush* had already proven himself untrustworthy.

What about the "new product rollout" language Ari was using did not make this entirely clear?