Democrats: can we agree that the Iraq 'war' was a mistake based on a lie?

[Q]

Certainly we can at least agree on this? I realize that some Democrats still believe that we have to 'stay the course' and not 'cut and run' in Iraq. But can we come to a mutual understanding that the invasion and occupation of Iraq was unnecessary for our national security?

The reason this is important is that politicians in both parties are using Iraq to smear Democratic candidates against the invasion and occupation. Democrats and others against the Iraq war are called traitors and accused of 'supporting terrorism' simply for telling the truth that the 'war on terror' isn't being fought in Iraq.

The truth is that Bush lied to congress and the American people about the need to attack Iraq and continues to lie about why we're still there. This is the indisputable truth. Yet more than a few Democratic leaders not only insist that this doesn't matter...but that their fellow Democrats are unPatriotic for not wanting to be part of the deception.

Democrats: can we agree that Bush lied and rushed this nation into an unnecessary and aggressive war that has needlessly taken the lives of too many American Soldiers and tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens? And if nothing else...Democrats coming together to expose the lie of the 'war on terror in Iraq' would weaken Bush's ability to keep the hostilities going indefinitely.

A meeting of minds on Iraq would go a long way in bringing the party back together if we can agree on these basic truths.

[Rockholm]

1. Agreed.

[AlbizuX]

2. not just a mistake

I enjoy Chomsky's more honest appraisal.

A war crime.

A violation of international law

An aggressive invasion, forbidden by the U.N. and by the Nuremberg Trials.

Putting it into proper perspective informs us on what we have to do (withdraw, prosecute the war leaders).

[Q]

3. Well...let's start with the word 'mistake'...

...and work from there. I would like the Democratic party to come together on this issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. Agreed. Not a "mistake", but naked aggression.

With all too many Democratic politician collaborators.

[Old Mouse]

61. absolutely! n/t

[Debs]

134. Bingo

Give the man a cigar

[izzybeans]

155. Chomsky's position is the moral one...

that we should be pounding down their throats. You know the whole "we're a nation of laws" bit Bush did in front of the world. Chomsky is the strongest voice to call him on the hypocracy of that statement. If they want values, there is nothing more valuable than that.

[buddhamama]

5. an illegal war based on a lie

n/t

[eleny]

6. I agree but have been considering something

Many families who lose a loved one in war probably have to believe that the person didn't die in vein no matter what. It's too horrible to accept the futility. I realize that a good number of families with soldiers serving in the Middle East have taken a stand against the war. But when you lose someone in your family, it's hard to face that it was for naught.

And this might weigh heavily on legislators. How do they balance the lie and maintain the sanity of families who lost someone? And remember that most legislators voted for the war based on the lie. They must get over the shame of being bamboozled and use that lie as the platform to help bring down this administration.

I haven't thought all this through. It's just that it keeps coming to mind and I thought this might be a good thread to post it. I do agree with your premise. It's a horrible problem becaue more soldiers and civilians will die while legislators stay the course. I disagree with staying there. I want to be out today, this minute. But how do we deal with the families who lost their loved one?

[Zhade]

32. Legislators who continue to lie are hurting the families.

If someone I loved was killed for a lie, I'd want to know ASAP. Can you imagine the pain when I later learned that not only did s/he die for an illegal war, but that the government continued to lie to make me feel better? I'd feel even more betrayed!

I believe that by and large Americans (though too many don't see them for what they are) cannot abide liars.

The ultimate, horrible truth is that these soldiers and civilians on both sides DID die in vain. There was absolutely no reason for them to die. None. They aren't "protecting America" or "defending freedom", because Iraq was not threatening us, couldn't threaten us, and Hussein wasn't about to destroy the Bill of Rights (our own government is doing a fine job of that on their own).

I know it sucks terribly to acknowledge, but the inescapable fact is that these men and women, these boys and girls, ALL died in vain.

I think the parents of the slain deserve the truth.

[eleny]

42. I agree with your assessment of the lie

However, I'm not sure that families who lost someone want to know it was a lie or that they feel it would do them good to believe it. Some people can't handle the truth and then others support the administration. These are some of the realities that legislators face. No matter what you and I may think and agree upon.

In a way, I can't face the fact that many people agree with the war and even approve of torture. It's sickening but that's the reality we're forced to face.

[Zhade]

45. Well, the ones who support b*sh should definitely be shown the truth!

It might turn them away from the traitor whose lies killed their loved one!

As for those who can't handle the truth, I think it dishonors the fallen to believe a lie about why they fell.

[eleny]

55. That's pretty tough to digest

I surely hope that it would turn them away from an administration that used and abused their family member. As for those who can't handle the truth about such a death, I don't know about that it's dishonoring their dead. Not being in that situation myself, it's hard to put my feet in those shoes. All I feel sure of is that it must be the hardest thing in the world to deal with.

Thanks for the conversation, Zhade.

[Zhade]

84. Thanks to you, as well.

You've given me things to ponder.

I suppose my personal bias shows - the thing I hate more than anything is lies. So if I were to find out I'd been lied to about why my loved one died, I'd be furious (and out for revenge).

[calimary]

63. I certainly understand this. But the war WAS a lie, WAS a mistake,

WAS an act of aggression, WAS wrong. And sadly, everyone who's died or been maimed has been rendered thus because it WAS a lie, WAS a mistake, WAS an act of aggression, WAS wrong.

I don't know how to get around this one. It's an AWFUL predicament. I can't get around those people I know who have come to hate the war and realize it was wrong, but still voted for bush. I don't know what to say to them, or think about them. And one of them is a longtime friend.

People desperately need coping mechanisms. Denial is a VERY effective one. My mother dined out on denial for years about the way my dad neglected her. She was unable to live with the truth, so she simply avoided dealing with it. That's how she coped. I'm sure anyone who's lost a son or daughter, or had him or her come home with pieces missing desperately needs coping mechanisms. I'd hate to think I'd lost my son, or that my kid lost her arm or lost his leg because of a lie.

People just do NOT want to admit, or be forced to face, that they've been had. And this is what it is. They HAVE been had. They've allowed themselves to be lied to and manipulated. Who the hell wants to admit to that?

I don't know what to do. I vacillate between wishing like hell I could help them, or help them see the light, and wanting to pray for them and comfort them - and figuring the hell with them for their wilfull blindness and stupidity. When it's self-inflicted, it's awfully hard for me to find sympathy. And part of me wants to give 'em a good shaking and say "I TOLD YOU SO!" Which, of course, will do LOTS of good and win over LOTS of converts, won't it? So I'm stuck. It's only a little easier for me, personally, to cope because I have always been on the correct side of this argument, since I have been against the war from the beginning. So there's no moral dilemma for me there. But I DO NOT know what to do or say for these people.

As a mother I can sympathize. But the facts are the facts. This war WAS a lie. It WAS a mistake. It WAS an act of aggression. And it WAS wrong. Period. Man, was it EVER wrong.

[GreenArrow]

67. regular people, ordinary citizens have been had

Those in power, so called leaders and representatives, those who dreampt this scheme up, marketed it, and voted for it, knew, with few exceptions, that is was based on lies. Lies were integral to its success. And if this war were more successful, no one now would be calling it a mistake. But it would still have been terribly, terribly, monstruously wrong.

[eleny]

82. I know people like that, too

And I think they'll have to be burned and come to the horrible conclusion themsleves. They won't be talked or reasoned into it. After all, they voted for him. It's also their damned fault.

And if I was a legislator, it would be a tough place to be after voting for the war. I'm not cutting them any slack, though. But I think it's why things are so crazy now. Because they didn't do the right thing when they had the chance. When they could have waited, studied, demanded more proof. After all, we knew enough to be totally skeptical. I never believed any of the bullshit. Since they did, they've painted themselves into a corner. They voted yes to war and it's their damned fault.

[Dhalgren]

129. Just think of the next soldier or civilian who gets killed

in this criminal war. They will have died not for the original lie, alone, but in order to spare the feelings of the families of those who had already been killed. Think how that family would feel about that. It is sad and disgusting no matter how one tries to deal with it, but a first step of some sort must be taken. Just today my own mother defended the war in Iraq as some kind of response to 9/11! I told her the truth and left her home...there was nothing else I could do. It is bewildering...

[AlbizuX]

95. i understand the sentiment...

but the Nazis ALSO had families who hoped that they wouldn't die in vain.

In this case, as much as we don't want to admit it to ourselves, we committed the same crime as the Nazis (illegal aggression against a sovereign state). And the Iraqis, like the French or Nordic resistance movements, is fighting us back.

The time for coddling military families is over...the first step toward rectifying our problems is admitting it.

It was a war crime, banned by the Nuremberg Trials. Why do we continue to ignore the truth of that?

[eallen]

7. You're making a mistake focusing on the war....

It's done. Look forward, not back.

[buddhamama]

8. the war is still raging

in Iraq, it is not done. "We" need to come to terms with how we got there in the first place.

[naryaquid]

9. How is it "done"?...It's still going on!?..

[no name no slogan]

10. Tell that the to soldiers who died after "Mission Accomplished"

And tell it to the families of troops who are currently stationed in Iraq.

Tell it to the tens of thousands of injured troops who are returning unwhole from battles in places like Mosul, Fallujah and Baghdad.

I'm sure they'll be gratified to know that they didn't get injured in a "war".

:eyes:

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[Crunchy Frog]

13. I would hardly call the war "done".

Try telling that to the soldiers who keep getting sent out on very long, multiple deployments. Try telling their families. Things are getting more unstable, more violent, and the casualty rate is steadily increasing.

Plus, it's very likely that they have more wars in the works.

At the very least, we need to look back enough to see what mistakes were made (like trusting Bu$h, and giving him too much authority) in order to try to avoid repeating them.

[Q]

17. I bet Bush would LOVE for us to stop focusing on the war...

...and I look forward to the end of the deception which is the war on terror in Iraq. It's probably very easy for YOU to say that it's a mistake to focus on the war...but then again you're sitting in your comfy chair while thousands of human beings are dying in Iraq.

[Jesus H. Christ]

29. Speaking of your mistakes...

nt

[jonnyblitz]

36. right. mission accomplished. how could I forget. silly me. n/t

[eallen]

58. OK, let me rephrase: we are in it. And as Mark Twain wrote....

"It is easier to stay out than to get out."

Staying out is no longer an option.

[Q]

92. "Staying out is no longer an option"

That's exactly what brought us Vietnam and what Bush depended on the people thinking once he rushed our troops to Iraq's borders. He and his cronies knew that once the US was there and soldiers started dying...that many Americans would be reluctant to 'cut and run'.

It's the oldest con in the book....used by some of the best con artists from the Reagan / Bush I administrations.

[Zenlitened]

12. Agreed. And I think you're right to suggest...

... that we need to just keep it matter-of-fact for now, and leave out words like illegal and war crime.

All of that sort of thing may be true, but our party is at such a rock-bottom point right now, that we really have to focus on the basics that unite us.

Just look at DU lately. We're all emotionally wrung-out, justifiably angry, but focusing on our disagreements is not helping at all, it seems to me.

[Zhade]

33. On the contrary, it's quite matter-of-fact to refer to it as illegal.

It is. And no amount of wishy-washy rightwing-enabling sugar-coating is going to earn the Democratic party any respect - or more voters.

Stand for truth, or fall for lies. It's really pretty simple.

[0007]

14. Listen to these lies here on this short five minutes video

http://www.angelfire.com/creep/gwbush/remindus.html

The deaths are about three hundred short.

[sandnsea]

15. The left won't agree

They want to rip apart the Democrats in Congress which is why we never got anywhere on the Bush war lies.

[Q]

20. The main issue here...

...is that GOPers and Democrats alike are using the war to trash Democratic candidates. In the end result it comes off as defending the Bush Doctrine of aggressive war and using it against fellow Democrats.

And it's wrong for anyone to label those against THIS war as being against all wars...especially those of last resort and to actually protect and defend our nation. This war wasn't a war of last resort and it wasn't in defense of our country.

[Zhade]

35. We "never got anywhere" because of DEMS running cover for the lies!

You can laughably try to pin it on (your own imprecise and inaccurate definition of) "the left", but the fact remains that it was centrist DLC-types who supported and encouraged the overthrow of a (very bad) leader who didn't attack us.

[sandnsea]

54. Keep attacking them

It hasn't gotten you anywhere so far. We needed Congress to go after Bush on the war lies. There was no way Dems could stand against Bush when the left was attacking the very people we needed to lead the way. The left have distorted this war every bit as much as the Bushies. It's not surprising middle America threw up there hands and voted Bush. Like they kept saying, at least they knew where he stood.

[Zhade]

85. "The left have distorted this war every bit as much as the Bushies."

Care to back up that little assertion?

[sandnsea]

87. Oh

The vote, the Grand Canyon statement, Kerry wants to stay the course just like Bush, the attacks are ONLY Iraqis defending their country. I wouldn't trust the left with running the country any more than I trust the right.

[Zhade]

102. No, see, I asked you to back up your assertion.

You still have yet to do that. You know, with examples, evidence, proof - not more unsupported assertions.

[sandnsea]

103. Interesting tactic

You don't like my examples, so you ignore them. Your choice I guess.

[Zhade]

105. No, I just ignore unsupported assertions.

Your flawed interpretation of "the left" shows me what I can expect from you - and it's not honest debate, but more smears.

See, when you make a bold assertion, like "The left have distorted this war every bit as much as the Bushies", then it's incumbent on you to back up your viewpoint. You didn't. Your "examples' are still mere assertions, not supported by any evidence.

I'm happy to consider any evidence of those assertions, but you have to actually provide it before I can do so. Otherwise, I can safely conclude you're not interested in actually making a credible argument.

Pretty simple concept to grasp, actually.

(EDITED to add your exact quote for accuracy.)

[sandnsea]

110. My quote

"We needed Congress to go after Bush on the war lies. There was no way Dems could stand against Bush when the left was attacking the very people we needed to lead the way. The left have distorted this war every bit as much as the Bushies."

Which you took out of context so you could ignore the examples that were given. The insurgents are ONLY Iraqi's defending their country, which clearly isn't true. The IWR vote necessarily is a vote FOR war, which Bush said at the time wasn't accurate. Do you understand exactly what Bush got away with there? He got away with war plans on his desk, illegally taking money from Afghanistan for a war, while telling the American people he had no plans for war. All because the left joined the right in calling that IWR vote a vote for war. He got away with labeling Kerry the flip-flopper when the facts clearly showed Bush was the one who was lying in October 2002 about his intentions to go to war. The left has distorted the facts on this war in so many ways, and hurt more often than they help.

[Zhade]

113. I'll break this down for you...

"We needed Congress to go after Bush on the war lies."

Completely agree.

"There was no way Dems could stand against Bush when the left was attacking the very people we needed to lead the way."

This is wrong, because the people who could have led the way failed to do so, and that's why people (left and moderate) were criticizing (not attacking) them. I don't recall anyone criticizing those who voted AGAINST the IWR.

"The left have distorted this war every bit as much as the Bushies."

This statement remains an unsupported assertion.

There was no need to use your entire quote, because it doesn't support your assertion. The first sentence can't be argued with, the second sentence is flawed reasoning, and the third sentence is an unsupported allegation which you STILL haven't proven to be true.

This one really puzzles me, though:

The IWR vote necessarily is a vote FOR war, which Bush said at the time wasn't accurate.

Are you saying that, because a notorious liar like b*sh says it's not a vote for war, that it's not a vote for war? Or that, because he said it wasn't for war, Dems in Congress were too stupid to disbelieve a guy who STOLE the White House? I certainly hope I'm misreading your meaning there, because if I'm not and you actually thought that would be a credible argument, you'll have to excuse me while I wipe up the milk that just shot out of my nose.

b*sh got away with what he did because 1) he lied, repeatedly and 2) too many Dems didn't call him on it or worse voted to give him authority even while people like us on DU were debunking the rationale in real-time.

[sandnsea]

116. Here we go

"I don't recall anyone criticizing those who voted AGAINST the IWR."

And because you just can't get past the difference between the IWR and actually going to war, it's impossible to have a discussion. I wish I knew if you really didn't understand, or if you're just stuck because of a political agenda.

Had we done what the left wanted over the 12 years prior to IWR, the only possible outcome would have been Saddam in power with no restrictions whatsoever. I don't support alot of what's been done, but that doesn't mean I can't see that the U.S. has a responsibility to try to steer the world away from WMD. And that includes the U.S., which John Kerry fully supports, in case you missed it. Part of that process is creating an international inspections process that really works, which was Kerry's intention when he voted for the IWR. We missed the opportunity to support that too. Being anti-US is not creating workable international policy, but anti-US is all the left ever seems to be able to come up with.

[Cheswick2.0]

124. The grand canyon statement was the 2nd stupidest thing Kerry said

during the campaign. The stupidest was when he said he voted for the 89 million before he voted against it.

[Cheswick2.0]

97. ROFL, you have got to be kidding

The people who voted to go to war because they wanted to run for office were never going to turn around and do anything about bush's lies.

The left is the ONLY group that has told the truth about Bush and the war.

[sandnsea]

101. Like Howard Dean?

The one who politicized this war more than anybody I can even think of? Who never believed a fucking word that came out of his mouth and changed course with whatever direction the lefty wind was blowing? Puhleeze.

The left has told "a" truth about the war, but not "the" truth because the left puts everything under a myopic lens of evil America and would undoubtedly march us all to the guillotines if someone promised a US-free utopia as a result.

[Zhade]

104. Wow, you must REALLY hate Dean.

The one who politicized this war more than anybody I can even think of?

What, you have a mental blind spot and can't think of b*sh or any of the THOUSANDS of Republicans who politicized the invasion mercilessly?

Who never believed a fucking word that came out of his mouth...

Of course you realize there is no possible way for you to know what's in Dean's head, right? You do realize you're talking out of your ass on that one, right?

The left has told "a" truth about the war, but not "the" truth because the left puts everything under a myopic lens of evil America and would undoubtedly march us all to the guillotines if someone promised a US-free utopia as a result.

If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were calling (your flawed interpretation of) "the left" a bunch of lying, genocidal authoritarians.

I never even liked Dean all that much, but people as hostile to his populism as you are really make him more appealing every day.

[sandnsea]

106. Populism?

Who's talking about populism here?

I'm talking about politicization of the war. And nobody has done it more than Howard Dean, not even George Bush. Bush's lies are horrendous, but letting Bush get away with the lies by putting your own presidential aspirations ahead of holding Bush accountable is equally horrendous. And that's exactly what Howard Dean did. It only takes tracking his comments from summer of 2002 to February of 2003 to figure out he's an opportunist. No honest person can go from calling for inspections or invade to pretending they were anti-war from the start. Kerry specifically said imminent threat and never called for an invasion otherwise, even if WMD were found.

Some leftists have been lying, genocidal authoritarians. History is full of them. US leftists, particularly young ones, have a blind spot to that reality. Which isn't to say they intentionally lie, but their lack of objectivity leads them to erroneous conclusions which are more harmful than helpful.

[Zhade]

109. You are correct, you said nothing of his populism.

You just misrepresented Dean himself, rather than his populism, so I retract that part of the statement.

[Eloriel]

122. I don't think you can support that at all

I've followed Dean from late 2002, and your assertion is viciously inaccurate:

I'm talking about politicization of the war. And nobody has done it more than Howard Dean, not even George Bush. Bush's lies are horrendous, but letting Bush get away with the lies by putting your own presidential aspirations ahead of holding Bush accountable is equally horrendous. And that's exactly what Howard Dean did. It only takes tracking his comments from summer of 2002 to February of 2003 to figure out he's an opportunist. No honest person can go from calling for inspections or invade to pretending they were anti-war from the start.

Any call for "inspections" that he made was with full knowledge that in a sane world (a slight overestimation by many in politics) inspections would have prevented war. He has routinely said he never did believe Saddam had WMD (and continued inspections, of course, would've proven that), and I don't think you can prove otherwise.

I would also like to point out that your key assertion is itself logically flawed:

No honest person can go from calling for inspections or invade to pretending they were anti-war from the start.

There's no innate contradiction there. IOW, it IS entirely possible, as I've shown, for someone to hold BOTH views and be entirely internally consistent, logically coherent AND utterly honest. Rigid literalists, especially those who like to twist things to demonize people to serve their own agenda (something Republicans are wont to do and especially good at) either can't see that or don't want to and won't.

I don't think there's much I've ever agreed with you on, sandnsea, but this post puts you in a new category for me. You go so out of your way to damn a man who wasn't even part of the discussion, and to create a controversy where there actually IS none, that you have pretty well self-destructed with me in the credibility department. I think I'll put you in my "watch like a hawk" category -- brand new, developed just as a result of these absolutely bullshit posts of yours.

[Name removed]

126. Deleted message

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

[Cheswick2.0]

123. this is a crock of shit

where in heavens name did you come up with this bizzare theory? How exactly did Dean put his own presidential aspirations ahead of holding bush accountable on the war.
You've gotta be talking about Kerry.

[Zhade]

132. One can call for inspections and not be for invasion.

What, do you think all those who suggest the United States should allow its WMD to be inspected are also calling for invasion?

So how, exactly, could Dean calling for inspections preclude him from being anti-war? Careful how you answer - if you're arguing that calling for inspections means one is automatically pro-war, then you're saying Kerry was for the war when he voted for the IWR.

Can't have it both ways.

[sandnsea]

148. Oh

So Kerry & Dean had the same position on the Iraq War. Dean wasn't against the war from the start. Just as I always thought.

[Zhade]

157. Nope - though I figured that would be your response.

There was no threat, and Dean never said "invade if there are WMD", nor did he support the overthrow of Hussein like Kerry did, nor did he fail to speak out against b*sh taking us to war after the IWR like Kerry did.

Nice try, though.

[Cheswick2.0]

125. LOL, please give examples...but

makes sure they are Dean quotes and not out of context.

[Cheswick2.0]

96. don't blame the left for the gutless and greedy actions of centrist

democrats. That is absolutly ridiculous.

[sampsonblk]

121. The left/right thing is getting kinda boring

Those of us who insist that our party stand on principle - which you call the "the left" - will not quietly accept garbage from Bush, and we won't quietly accept it from our party "leaders" either. Its one of those habits that principled people can never seem to kick.

[yurbud]

16. Would have been nice if Kerry said this

Or that Bush is using our military for private gain.

I still am mystified why he didn't call him on the lies about WMD during the debates.

[RafterMan]

18. No

I have no idea what Bush believed, but I do know this -- if everything he said was true, the war would still have been a mistake.

I'll accept those who have to go with the lie theory, but I think it's harder to prove and worse, a dangerous misunderstanding of what the real problem is. So I'm sticking with "mistake".

[Q]

19. I believe the record shows that the Bushies did indeed LIE...

...and then used the corporate media to coverup those lies after the fact. The part of all of this that is difficult to accept is that so many Democrats went along with it. That could be defined as the 'mistake' part. But now that everyone knows that Bush rushed this nation into an unnecessary war based on lie...Democrats have an opportunity to set the record straight and keep America from REPEATING THE SAME MISTAKE of Vietnam.

[RafterMan]

22. I just don't think that's the problem

if Iraq did indeed have WMD they were successfully hiding from the inspectors, would you now be saying war was the right move?

Me neither.

[Q]

25. I won't disagree with your point...

...but Iraq is doing a lot of damage to the Democratic party in that divides us on an issue that should bring us together.

We all know (at least here on DU) that the invasion and occupation of Iraq had nothing to do with WMD. That Bush had to constantly change the reasons he attacked Iraq should show that it was nothing more than a scam.

This is common knowledge...which is why it would benefit the Democratic party to simply tell this truth to the American people.

[RafterMan]

40. I think the problem is many officeholders

painted themselves into a corner by talking up what a grave threat Saddam was.

But suppose they "tell the truth" and now say Bush lied, there were no WMD, thus war was foolish.

What objection do they make when the next guy comes along and he really does have WMD yet is still no threat to the US? We've left in place the argument that if he did have WMD, then he was a threat -- how do we escape it in the future?

There was no threat from Saddam, WMD or no. I see this as the only argument that provides any inocculation against future folly. And I see it getting lost in the "what Bush knew and when" dispute.

[Dhalgren]

130. Well, at least with the government we have now,

if a country actually has WMD we absolutely will not attack them - we only attack those who don't have WMD - we just claim that they do...

[Zhade]

37. They did lie, and here's how you can tell...

Think back to all those times b*sh et al conflated Iraq with 9/11 and "the war on terror".

Now think back to when they got called on the deception, and stated numerous times that they "never said that".

It was a calculated move to suggest, to imply, to infer that Hussein had something to do with 9/11 without ever actually saying "Hussein did it". Such calculation reveals that there was an intent to deceive.

Therefore, they were lying, AND THEY KNEW IT.

[jpgray]

21. Yep. The war is one thing we should be able to get together on

Lieberman and others should be extremely rare exceptions. The Dem platform has the rather ambiguous and toothless "people of goodwill can disagree on whether it was a mistake", which isn't at all satisfying. That said, the platform does at least give some account of the lies leading to the war and the incompentency and corruption of its execution thus far. It also emphasizes that the US should follow the Geneva Conventions in treatment of prisoners, that all peaceful avenues should have been exhausted as promised via the UN, etc. That's all good stuff, but there was a great failure in not getting that message out there up until very late in the election.

[no name no slogan]

23. There was a HUGE effort to make the platform more anti-war

massive petition drives, anti-war speakers at the platform committee meetings....and yet, those delegates to the platform committee chose to go with the lukewarm resolution presented by the party operatives.

I was involved with the effort to beef up the platform's anti-war stance, and we were thwarted at every turn by the party brass. A friend of mine gave stirring testamony in front of the platform committee, urging a stronger anti-war stance. He and several others brought several thousands of signatures from Kucinich, Dean, Clark, Sharpton AND Kerry supporters to the meeting, urging a strong anti-war plank.

Instead of a plank, we got lip service. We got a plank that all but endorsed the illegal war, only denouncing its method rather than its morality.

[jpgray]

27. The current leadership has a complex about national security

Their blatant pandering and overcompensation however would win less votes than taking a strong stance (not "strong" as in war-loving) and moving on to areas where we trounce Republicans in the polls every time. The obsession just proves the GOP rhetoric to the public--remember the headlines were not, in essence, "Dems Strong on Defense" but "Dems Desperately Trying to Fix Horrible, Shitty Image on Defense."

[Zhade]

38. Yep, they have a complex, all right -

a military-industrial complex that many of them benefit from.

Take Diane Feinstein, for example. Pro-IWR, and wouldn't you know it, her husband owns weapons contractor stock.

[Q]

28. It doesn't have to be an 'anti-war' platform...

...but an anti-Iraq-war platform. We should be able to say in no uncertain terms that Democrats would back a war necessary for the defense of the United States. And we should mean it when we say war should always be a last resort.

[LynnTheDem]

24. "Mistake"? No. It was an ILLEGAL INVASION based on a pack of lies.

Or as the Nuremburg Tribunal stated;

The SUPREME CRIME.

GET ROPES.

[Zhade]

39. Exactly.

NT!

[Dhalgren]

131. Man, Lynn! I am with you!

[Tinoire]

149. Yep... No sense mincing words! "The Supreme Crime"! n/t

[GreenArrow]

26. based on a lie, (a whole bunch of lies, actually) yes

a mistake, no. It was purely intentional; they knew EXACTLY what they were doing.

[Q]

30. We have to start somewhere...

...in getting the entire party to agree where we stand on Iraq. As far as war crimes...that buck has to stop with Bush.

[GreenArrow]

34. part of the problem

is that because the war was prosecuted and founded on lies, it cannot be a "mistake." Their lies speak intention. I've never doubted that those Dems who voted in favor of IWR were well aware of the lies, or chose to be willfully unaware of them.

Maybe "mistake" is as far as some people, right and left, are willing to characterize it today; maybe in time people will come around, and admit that they were lied to, insulted, stolen from, used and despised, held as objects of contempt, and betrayed, but right now the great God Demnial holds sway.

[RafterMan]

48. I see it the opposite way

Mistake is the stronger criticism, from my point of view. Even if our representatives believed all the administration told them, they still should have been able to spot this obvious blunder before it was started.

"We were lied to!" sounds to me like dodging that responsibility -- lies or no, they blew it.

[GreenArrow]

65. hmmm...I see "mistake" as the rationalization/justification

for accepting/promoting the obvious lies. I believe that very few of those voting for IWR were lied to, at least in the sense that they were told untruths and then made their decisions based on those untruths. (The lies were just for public consumption) Rather, they knew that the sales job put on them by Bushco was a bunch of lies, and they went with it anyway, for whatever misguided reasons. The mistake was going to Iraq to begin with, even if all Bush's varied and many-changing reasons had been truthful.

It was a mistake to believe the lies, knowing they were lies, and to not brand them as such. Going in to begin with was not a "mistake," as it is now being called, because they did it on PURPOSE, under cover of lies, and with full knowledge that the basis for doing so rested on a bed of ever shifting lies. It is being termed a "mistake" now only because the whole scheme has been such a dismal failure.

I guess if things had gone better in Iraq, it wouldn't be an issue. It would still have been just a wrong, and just as much a product of lies.

[eridani]

86. Exactly-- a 'mistake' is when you accidentally--

--put engine oil into the radiator or the window wash. The IWR was an on purpose moral abomination.

[RafterMan]

93. I think that needlessly restricts the definition of "mistake"

Mistake doesn't just mean accident. Hitler invaded Russia on purpose. It was a mistake.

It's a mistake in judgement. It was a stupid, self-destructive policy. Blaming your foolishness on someone else's lies is like a child who is cajoled into misbehavior -- "but he told me to" just isn't an excuse.

[Zhade]

31. To call it a mistake is to discourage accountability.

I know your intentions are good - to allow those here who still can't admit they fell for the lies and that the war was immoral and illegal to at least say it was a "mistake" - but IMHO they don't need to be coddled. They need to see the truth, and get angry for being lied to.

[Q]

41. Once again...I agree...

...but if the Democratic party can't agree on the basics...then we'll never get to the desired point of making Bush and his enablers responsbile for their crimes.

[Zhade]

47. We're beyond that, my friend.

We have too many Dems willing to suspend their belief in justice for political expediency to reconcile it all now.

Hell, there are still liberals who wrongly believe we HAD to nuke Hiroshima and Nagasaki! Never mind that the Japanese were willing to surrender if we gave them the one condition we ended up giving them after we dropped the bombs.

No, you and I are now in the wilderness outside the Two-Plutocrat-Party system. Fortunately, there are millions more like us, and growing. I do believe the Dems AND the Repubs are doomed as parties; I for one refuse to lie for them ever again.

[robbedvoter]

43. A crime - based on several lies. I'll take "Mistake" in Clark's sense:

"the biggest mistake since the cold war"

[Darranar]

44. Not a "mistake" - far too kind. It is a case of blatant aggression. n/t

[blondeatlast]

46. I'd like to meet the DUer who would answer "no."

On second thought, maybe not.

I agree. Iraq was a horrible mistake based on a lie.

[MrSlayer]

49. No, it was no mistake but it certainly was based on lies.

They knew exactly what they were doing.

[Disturbed]

52. Based upon the Bush Junta logic..

Iran, Syria and N. Korea have a right to pre-emptively attack Amerika.

[MrSlayer]

56. Yes, if they were allowed to use the same arguments.

But only the Chimp is allowed to do this, anyone else would be waging illegal imperialistic war.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. It was based on a lot of lies, but

it was no mistake; it was deliberate aggression, based on greed and megalomania.

[charlie]

57. Just 3 weeks ago, Bush again tipped his hand

to what a scam it was by awarding the Medal of Freedom to a man who supposedly:

• Let bad intel about Saddam shopping for nuke material slip into the State of the Union speech
• Provided assessments of Iraq's WMD that were 100% off the mark
• Was blindsided by Osama's 911 attack

Whatta strange thing to do, bestowing the highest honor on a major league fuckup. Except of course, he wasn't:

• He had Bush delete the unreliable uranium info from a speech 3 months earlier
• Couldn't stop the OSP from cherrypicking and shoehorning CIA WMD intel into their desired scenario
• Prepared a special remedial-reading PDB with the headline "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Within the US" and was characterized as running around "with his hair afire", worried that attack was imminent

It's pretty obvious Tenet's reward wasn't for service to country, but for taking the rap for Dubya's LIES.

[A Brand New World]

51. Agreed that this is an unnecessary, likely illegal war based on

complete and absolute lies. I would have almost bet my life back when this was being sold to the American citizens and the press, that the WMD was fabrication. All of the UN inspectors and ex-inspectors stated as such, even then.

The problem though for the Dems is that if they come out against the war now and even back then, it "supposedly" means that they still want Saddam in power torturing and killing all of those poor Iraqis. That we don't want the Iraqis to enjoy the benefits of democracy. Therefore, that makes us rascist because we don't want the foreigners to be free like us. (Trust me, this is all sarcasm based on the typical Repub's response. These are not my feelings.)

[welshTerrier2]

53. focus on CURRENT policy

i'm really not sure there's much to be gained rehashing and analyzing the lies that led up to the war ... and while i could spend hours criticizing the Democratic Party for not standing loudly and clearly in opposition to bush's dreams of global conquest, i've even moved past that ... i'm not sure Democrats will benefit politically from dwelling on the history of this issue ...

this leads me to the present day ... the Democratic Party continues to call for more "war" in Iraq ... that's the current position ... how any person or any party can look at the madness going on over there and believe that there can ever be a military solution is beyond anything i'm able to comprehend ... if I decide to leave the party, this will be one of the major reasons ...

the Democrats have suffered because of how they've handled this issue ... there's nothing wrong with trying to understand the political ramifications of the party's position ... but dwelling on the past is not likely to yield much mileage ... and continuing on the current path is likely to do real political damage from both inside and outside the party ...

[Q]

71. In this case the past means everything to the present and future...

...because something based on a lie can never be justified.

It seems we never want to revisit the past. Politicians don't like to talk about the Vietnam war or their votes that enabled Bush to attack Iraq. But sometimes we have to go back to the beginning to understand how and where things went wrong.

We're always encouraged to 'move on' and 'get over' things that have gone wrong in the past. Neither party wants to talk about the 2000 or the 2004 election fraud because they were both complicit in it. And now they're protecting each other's butts over the Iraq 'war' because nearly all of them supported it from the beginning.

If indeed no president is 'above the law' and justice means anything in the United States...we must go back to when Bush lied and rushed this nation to war and make him and his cronies accountable.

[Zhade]

107. Maybe if we hadn't moved on from Viet Nam...

...we might have learned our lesson, and this country might have been vastly different.

Maybe this invasion never would have happened, even, had we paid attention to history.

[welshTerrier2]

111. agree ... and disagree too ...

my point was not to suggest that we should not learn from history ... that so many have forgotten the lessons of Vietnam is very much one of the underlying enablers of what's going on in Iraq today ... so to that extent, we're in full agreement ...

the point i was trying to make focussed on the debate on the issue within the Democratic Party itself ... i can't tell you how many times i've argued about how wrong Kerry's IWR vote was ... the discussion goes nowhere ... that's point one: the discussion goes nowhere ... the Kerry loyalists retort that I "didn't read his full statement" or that I didn't understand what he said ... whatever ... we've tried to "record the record of history" and the coals are still too hot to reach any consensus ...

but to focus on TODAY raises very new and very different questions ... it says: "Look, let's get past the blame game for this candidate or that one ... whatever happened happened ... we do need to study the past to understand how we've come to where we are and to prevent it from happening again ... but TODAY, the situation is getting worse and worse and the consequences are greatly magnified ... regardless of whether you thought we should or shouldn't invade, do you condone what's happening now ???"

i guess the perspective i'm trying to convey is that there will be plenty of time to study why the building was constructed the way it was ... perhaps you argued for one architecture while i argued for another ... but can we at least agree that the building is on fire, what we're doing is making the fire worse and we need to get the hell out of here ???

[Zhade]

133. You make a damn fine point.

My only concern is not letting the pro-war Dems off the hook. But yes, putting out the fire is of more immediate concern than pointing out the arsonists.

However, we come to an impasse: if some of the Dems DID want war, but we don't really know either way, we're not sure how to sway them to get out of Iraq.

Of course, I think the Iraqi people are going to force that on their own...just like Viet Nam.

Such a total waste.

[American Tragedy]

154. I'd like to know how the hell so many baby-boomers could support this

Of all people, I would have thought that they would be able to remember!

You know, I remember my dad telling me that something like Vietnam could never happen again, because it was so vivid in the collective consciousness of his generation, and they comprised such a massive percentage of the electorate that no politician would try it. Naive, but that's what he thought. And that's what I thought. I guess the lessons of history really are brief.

[Clarkie1]

59. Absolutely! n/t

[Pepperbelly]

60. Totally agree. A HUGE f*cking lie! nt

[IndyPriest]

62. Yes, absolutely. n/t

[leesa]

64. An unprovoked invasion of a disarmed country is NOT a "mistake"

The invasion was wholly deliberately planned and the lies were told to make it happen. So, I guess we don't agree.

[GreenArrow]

66. exactly

no one would be calling it a "mistake" if things were going well there.

[Q]

69. We don't disagree...

...but you seem to be taking it a bit out of the context of my premise. We can certainly agree that the invasion and occupation was based on a series of lies and deceptions, that it's an illegal, aggressive war and that the Neocons used 9-11 as an excuse to do something they wanted to do for a long time: destroy Iraq, build military bases, enrich defense and energy industries and control the oil.

But this 'war' is being used by both Republicans and conservative Democrats to trash progressive Democrats who don't support it for moral and ethical reasons. They used it to smear Dean and Kucinich and every other candidate that even hinted they were against attacking and occupying Iraq.

This has to stop for the good of the party. It's not up to the progressives to change their anti-Iraq war positions...it's up to those in the Democratic party that support it to start telling the truth to the American people.

[hansolsen]

83. Well said; I agree 100%. N/T

[pdxmom]

68. I think it's difficult to have a meeting of minds on the present

but I don't think any of us have a meeting of the minds on what happened. I don't know what those that represent us were thinking in being complicit in getting into this...I was screaming about it from the very beginning.

The problem is with what to do now. Get out totally and leave the Iraqis with a bigger mess then they had before? Stay in and see it to the end? I don't know if I really know where I stand on that continuum, much less if the party could come up with a one answer solution.

This is what a quagmire looks like.

[DaveinMD]

70. yes

a lie by the Bush Adminstration told to everyone, including Democrats who voted for the war.

[Q]

72. If we can agree that Democrats now know...

...that Bush lied...why is it that so many of them still support it? And why are some in the party still using this war to smear anti-Iraq war Democrats? Isn't this a disconnect with the truth?

[DaveinMD]

73. who?

Kerry certainly didn't during the campaign. Maybe Lieberman. Regardless, I think there is wide belief in the party that Bush lied to everyone.

[rodeodance]

74. of course!!!

[GreenArrow]

76. "Bush lied to everyone"

And nearly everyone, Republicans and Dems alike, as well as the media, knew that Bush was lying to them, yet went along with the plan anyway. They tolerated the means because they believed in the ends. The lies were told primarily to convince the public.

[DaveinMD]

77. I disagree

I think most believed that the wmd may have existed. We thought real inspections would have found them. We were wrong about that. Bush knew that because he had the real intelligence.

[GreenArrow]

80. people believed because that's what they were told

repeatedly, day in, day out. Voices offering other opinions, or suggesting caution were quickly and ruthlessly marginalized. "How dare you question the President!" And Scott Ritter -- read Mark Crispin Miller's recent book (title escapes me) book for a thorough exposition how he was demonized. Even as lies were debunked, they were still used, or new justifications were offered. Both Lieberman and Kerry were repeating the line about Saddam kicking the inspectors out as recently as the primary season. Even the editor of Time magazine got into the act, in an interview on NPR, prior to the invasion. These people should know better, right?

Then there are blatant lies like Colon Polyp's farcical presentation at the UN, or the whole yellowcake scheme. But even if we were to assume that Saddamn had WMD, the whole scenario about him being an imminent threat was pure make-believe. I assumed Saddam had extremely limited quantities of something, but a) would not be so foolish as to use it and b) had NO CAPACITY to use it. As it turns out, Saddam was telling the truth, and our government and media were lying, blatantly and shamelessly, and apparently, with impunity.

[Zhade]

114. Answer me this, then...

Suppose WMD had existed. Would that have been a reasonable rationale, MINUS A THREAT, to invade and occupy Iraq?

If yes, then surely you must concede that WE should be invaded, since we have more WMD than anyone on the planet (and we actually DO threaten other countries).

[GreenArrow]

158. the answer is no

If Iraq had simply WMD, it would not be enough. None of the rationales offered was adequate...or honest. It was simply an enterprise of conquest and plunder.

[American Tragedy]

153. What shocked me was when Bush kicked out the inspectors.

I was quite supportive of forcing Hussein to admit the weapons inspectors, even though I was highly doubtful of whether Saddam could possibly have anything left after the barrage of the previous twelve years.

But then, before the inspections were completed, Bush suddenly declares that they have to get out so that our military can storm the country! WTF?! That's when I realized that he was upset because they weren't coming up with anything.

[Cheswick2.0]

99. I think most of them also knew he was lying and voted for IWR anyway

because they were running for office.

[electric-eye]

75. YES

[SnoopDog]

78. Sorry but, was there ever a doubt that this invasion was based on a lie?

[Q]

90. I guess there is some kind of doubt...

...since Bush's stand is that he went to 'liberate' them. And you can hear Democrats to this day blustering about the 'freedom and democracy' we're going to bring to Iraq. We already know about the GOP denial. What concerns me is the denial coming from the left. There's no more talk of 'lies' from either side.

[GreenArrow]

100. that's because it's not a right/left issue

at least in a tradtional sense. It's more a corporatist/rest of the world issue. The majority of Dems are corporatists, just as there Repubican brethren are. The Pubs just seem to be a more virulent strain.

[babylonsister]

79. I don't know.

Was it initially done to overwhelm the Iraqis (after all, Americans are all powerful), and then rescue the Iraqi population, and free them with democracy? (while taking their oil?) It was not a mistake. IMHO, but in my heart as well.
Otherwise, I totally agree. The current admin is sleazy and more and more facts are coming out to support that. Stand by, it could finally be fun, rewarding, justified.

[GOPBasher]

81. Yes, we certainly agree on that.

[ComerPerro]

88. Hell, I can't wait until Bush finally cuts and runs

[Lexingtonian]

89. That's a bit too easy

I agree with all you say.

Still, the logic of the situation doesn't begin with the 1990-91 Gulf War. American involvement in the social/political progression (for the lack of a better term) of the region begins in the 1940s and the creation of the state of Israel, more or less.

Iraq is to the American involvement with the transition to the Modern Age in the Middle East as Vietnam was in the American involvement with the 75 year effort of 'Soviet Communism', i.e. the Russia-centered historical period defined by Lenin's and Stalin's post-Czarist imperialism.

Vietnam was a more or less arbitrary place in which the pent up frustrations and anxiety of the Cold War were dealt with in a dreary, horrid, and bloody way, the material results otherwise being just a waste of blood and treasure.

Iraq is the more or less arbitrary place in which Western-Arab mutual frustrations and anxieties are being dealt with in a similar fashion and to a similar result. (Note that frustrations being dealt with via violence happens due to insistence on it by morons.)

None of it excuses Bush's lies and warmongering and high handed behavior, the essential criminality of an offensive war, nor the delusion of 'fighting terrorism'. None of it excuses the killing of thousands of Iraqi civilians, or Vietnamese ones before it.

In the end it's a stupid bar fight. Iraq is a stupid bar fight. Vietnam was a stupid bar fight. The rational people simply can't stop the irrational ones from fighting it out, ultimately. It's all yet another price we- all of us- have to pay for living in a world of fools.

Democrats can't argue much of anything that matters about the way the Iraq business began. Where there is hay to be made is in the failure of the Bushies to deliver on any of the promises made that were supposed to justify the violation of international law and the price paid in blood and greenbacks. So far, all the Bushies have delivered is a small set of boosts to the egos of the most ignorant.

[Q]

91. A bar fight planned since the 90s?

I don't know about that. I disagree that the Democrats can't argue about what led up to the invasion of Iraq. They would look like larger hypocrites if they made an issue of Bush not 'delivering on promises' when they knew he was lying all the time.

The Democratic party is in danger of losing much of their base because it looks like they enabled Bush to go to war and now won't admit their 'mistakes'. It might be that the only thing the Democrats have left is honesty.

[Lexingtonian]

118. Why not?

Do you think Dubya really had any higher personal motive than retribution for SH dissing his daddy? If there ever was a war waged out of sheer offended vanity, isn't it this one?

Just because a promise isn't credible doesn't mean you can't hold people to it. Why all the hullaballoo about the nonexistent WMD, then?

Look, in a nation that has been split roughly 50/50 partisanwise for 4-5 years, 70% supported letting Dubya run a military venture in late 2002 and early 2003. That means 40% or more of Democratic voters agreed. Where is the honesty about that, about Democrats as a whole being split 60/40 during the decision making? About an essential ambivalence overall, despite great polarization, among Democrats at the time? Isn't it revisionism to pretend otherwise???

I think all of this argument being picked here is a continuation of a selfrighteousness meme within the Democratic Party. Not that I think the intellectual conclusions- invading and occupying Iraq being a bad military adventurism and human travesty/tragedy- are wrong, but the politics of righteous opposition is based in bad warrants. In the end the average person sees the Democratic anti-war activist arguments as boiling down to "But we're right, because, well, we're never wrong, never mind that the facts are somewhat complicated and the situation is not totally straightforward". The Democratic anti-war faction's argument just never adequately deals with the "but Saddam is evil" argument. It's a weakness.

A defensive righteousness was an appropriate and accepted politics while our side was a definite political and moral minority, e.g. into the mid-Nineties. But Democrats are now trying to be the majority force, politically and morally, in this argument which is the most important national argument (ignoring for a moment its intense stupidity).

I think the honest thing to say about Iraq is: it was a war begun out of vanity, a violated creature vanity and a foolish Messianic vanity and as a distraction from the degradation of American society in the course of its internal fighting about Modernity and resentments dating into the Cold War. Wise Democrats don't think vanity is an adequate reason to instigate a war, but American vanity in its form and agitation in the situation of the time was so large and demanding that the course of action chosen wasn't preventable.

An honest Democratic selfcritique is something like this: a great many Democrats were caught up in the society-wide sense of Iraq offending the vanity of the society as whole. Another set of Democrats opposed the impending war, largely out of individual rationales of not wanting to permit a war of aggression, but the politics of it was distorted by a large subset justifying their opposition by a overall claim to a higher morality. On careful inspection this claim to a higher morality was found to be simplistic and with a number of warrants that were far less solid- often hollow- than was pretended to, even if the evidence was strongly in favor of the political conclusion reached.
In sum: anti-war Democrats reached the rational and proper political conclusion, but the way they did so doesn't demonstrate the maturity needed for moral or political leadership yet.

[American Tragedy]

152. Well stated, Lexingtonian.

But it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of politically conscious Democrats opposed this misadventure from the very beginning, didn't they? I mean the ones who weren't politicians or partisan elite, but who nevertheless paid attention to the news and whose minds were open enough to see the obvious truth.

And it was damned obvious. It didn't take an advanced degree in military science and intelligence to see through this one. My God, it bordered on surreal, hearing Rumsfeld try to explain to the press how they knew exactly where these alleged weapons were located, but for some reason they couldn't reveal the coordinates to the inspectors who were on the ground at that moment. I watched his eyes, and his mannerisms, and I saw every bad, desperate liar that I've ever known. I saw them in Colin Powell too, during his dismal presentation before the U.N. He and his blurry photos reminded me of nothing so much as the TAT, a psych projective measurement where a subject interprets a neutral image and builds a story around it.

[RollergirlVT]

94. yes yes yes and...

every time some one says they are finally sending the additional needed troops to Iraq, we must stop and remind folks, that that asshole lied us into this war, we never should have sent any troops! And for the "Saddam was an evil dictator" crowd, tell them, to go tell that to the 9 year old girl that was stoned to death in Iran because her brother molested her! Evil dictators are everywhere. I might remind folks we one of our own right here in the good ol' US of A. Why should tens of thousands of Iraqi children be orphaned, mutilated and killed in the name of "freedom" while Saddam is receiving all his medical treatment, food and shelter in safety, compliments of the USA.

[gulliver]

98. It was a "sales lie"

That's when you hear two sides of an issue and only emphasize one in order to make a sale. The Bushies told us half the story and only sought intelligence to support that half. It was profoundly dishonest but not a lie.

I agree the war was a mistake, perhaps the biggest mistake in history.

[greenohio]

108. I hate all preemptive war, especially shrub's.

But I do not think that those who disagree with me are repukes.

[Q]

115. Of course you already know...

...that I haven't said that those who disagree are 'repukes'. Yet you insist on inserting words that aren't there.

Read the first thread again and you'll see that the premise is that Republicans and Democrats who support the invasion and occupation tend to use it against other Democrats with anti-Iraq war positions.

[greenohio]

145. Paranoid.

I didn't say you said anything. On other threads you have said to vote against Democrats you disagree with. Maybe that is the source of the paranoia?

[Q]

159. Just to set the record straight...

...I didn't even suggest on any other threads that anyone should vote against 'Democrats they disagree with'. You know damn well that the thread was about not voting for DLC CANDIDATES.

I don't mind that you may disagree with what I have to say...but please don't try to distort my position on the issues.

[TankLV]

112. You'll get no argument from me.

It was illegal, immoral, and criminal.

Worse than a "mistake" - a collasal, impeachable CRIME!

[Leilani]

117. It was a mistake, & a lie.

But it's pretty hard for the Dems to oppose the war when so many voted for it.

And when your Presidential ticket is comprised of two men who voted Aye, & would do so again, where do you go?

The proof of the lies was out there for any Senator or Congressman to find, as did Linc Chafee, a Repub who voted no.

He went to the CIA & got a personal briefing, was shown the evidence, & voted no. All Senators & Congressmen were able to do the same thing.

I think some believed the lies, because they failed to search out the truth.

Others voted yes because it was politically expedient.

A Link to the decision making process of some Senators, including Chafee.

http://www.hillnews.com/news/072704/iraq.aspx

So how do you reach a consensus, as a party, if many of your elected officials continue the lie?

[PROGRESSIVE1]

119. A DANGEROUS blunder in the War on Terrorism!

Iraq was NEVER a threat to the U.S.A!

Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are the real threats to us. Iraq is for the Oil!

:puke:

[El Fuego]

120. Yes. Affirmative. You are correct, sir.

[bajamary]

127. a very costly mistake

Oh Lord yes, it is a very costly mistake in thousands and thousand of lives.

[LeftofU]

128. Yes!

[in_cog_ni_to]

135. YES! I agree. n/t

[Q]

136. Judging by the recent comments from many of the Democratic leadership...

...it seems that the Iraq war was a 'good idea'. Some Democrats continue to defend Bush's decision to wage an illegal war and praise him as a leader in the war on terror.

How can the rank and file be expected to understand the implications of an aggressive war without cause if their own leadership won't admit the truth?

[Geek_Girl]

138. They'll change once an overwhelming majority of Americans

Stop supporting the war. You just have to wait for the right poll numbers to come in.

[Geek_Girl]

137. I predict

as more and more Americas Wake up to the realities of the Iraq War

the moderate Democratic stance will shift and claim Iraq was a mistake. Those democrats that gave Bush the Authority to go to war will be blamed for this mess just as Bush himself is blamed.

This is the main reason in my opinion that Kerry lost and was able to be labeled a flip flopper. If democrats want to win in '08 they will have to select a candidate that did not support the invasion of Iraq.

I can't tell you how many times I heard from Bush supporters, "Kerry supported the war and now he's changed his position he can't have it both ways".

Democrats will have to field a candidate that is crystal clear from the start Iraq was a mistake otherwise we'll loose again.

[Q]

139. Wouldn't the corporate media have to regain their role as free press...

...before the American people were ALLOWED to see the realities of the Iraq war?

We live in a country where we're not even allowed to see or honor the returning 'coffins' of those who die in battle.

Instead of journalists able to report what they see...we have 'embedded' stenographers able only to report what they're ordered to report by the Bush White House.

Vietnam was different in that we still had a free press and Americans got a daily dose of the blood and guts of war on their nightly news.

But the Bushies are attempting to fight a 'bloodless' war where only good news is reported by the corporate media. What will wake up America under these circumstances?

[Geek_Girl]

140. Everyone I know has a friend or family member in Iraq

I don't think they are going to be able to keep the problems of Iraq under wraps. We are already starting to see polling numbers were a narrow majority of Americans believe the Iraq war was a mistake. Those numbers will most likely go up and when that happens I expect the democratic leadership will be making the same claims.

[Q]

141. I hope you're right...

...but 'they' were able to keep the problems in Vietnam from the American people for a very long time...and we had a much more 'free' press back then.

The problem remains: Americans and Iraqis are dying for a lie RIGHT NOW. Why should there be ANY more deaths when we can put an end to it simply by telling the whole truth?

[The Traveler]

142. War is always a bad idea

The presence of war basically clues ya to the fact that everyone involved has run out of good ideas. We're all human, so this will happen from time to time. It is a catastrophic failure in which both reason and compassion have fled the scene. Since I try to never underestimate the capacity of human beings to do stupid things, I advocate a strong national defense and a patient foreign policy.

Guys like Rosenberg who think this war was a good idea don't get this and won't allow themselves to see the consequences. Newsweek has written about the Pentagon's plan to form Death Squads to counter the insurgency. We did that in Vietnam ("Operation Phoenix"), and it sure worked for us then. Not. But think about that. America. Death Squads. The mind reels and the stomache turns. We've done it before, and were shamed and defeated. And the nation was outraged because the whole notion is fundamentally un-American.

Torture. Mass disinformation enabled by media complicity. Death Squads. Possibly stolen elections. Certain systematic disenfranchisement of the opposition and minorities. Rapid erosion of traditional American civil liberties. Perpetration of mass atrocity. These things tell us of a moral and intellectual cancer eating away at the soul of America. Just some of the consequences of this war ... but the real horrors lie ahead.

What kind of clueless idiot or soul spoiled monster thinks this was a good idea? I don't know ... but if the Democratic Party is going to head in that direction then I have to reconsider my affiliations.

Howard Dean, Wes Clark, and Dennis Kucinich are on the front lines fighting for the soul of the Democratic Party. We need to stay with 'em and collectively beat some sense into the heads of the Democratic Party leadership.

[Q]

146. They are not 'clueless idiots' although they probably want you to think...

...they are. It comes down to this: Politicians on both sides of the polticial spectrum are fighting a war for the sake of war. Not for liberation or democracy or any other noble idea...but simply because they can. There would be no grand plan for war if the US had the second or third largest military instead of the first.

The main warhawks in the Democratic party are the DLC...too closely affiliated with the PNAC Neocons for comfort. Both the Neocons and Neodems are using 9-11 to justify a war they've wanted for a decade or longer. They use doublespeak words like 'peace' and 'liberation' and 'freedom' when their real motivation is perpetual war and domination of the middle east. Iraq is only the beginning.

[The Traveler]

150. Disturbing point ... Democrats on the PNAC membership list

Creepy. Disturbing. Wrong.

[marcologico]

143. how about a holocaust based on a delusion? n/t

[spanone]

144. Our families are DYING for their fucking 'mistakes'

It's CRIMINAL. Mistake is way too kind.

[Q]

147. It's for sure THEIR families aren't dying in the middle east...

I called it a 'mistake' in order to have a discussion about Democrats who support this insanity. I called it a mistake but anyone who voted for what they must have known would be an unnecessary, illegal and aggressive war is just as responsible as the Bush White House.

That's a harsh reality. But it's never the People who start wars...it's always their leaders. Thus those leaders should be held accountable for putting the people unnecessarily in harm's way.

[Flying Dream Blues]

151. A mistake, certainly

and based on lies, absolutely. My username expresses how I feel about all of this...the revelation that this plan to wage war in Iraq existed BEFORE 9/11, the "wrong answer, check again until you DO see an Al-Qaeda connection in Iraq", the Plame outing in retribution for simply reporting the truth about the yellowcake/Nigeria fabrication...the list goes on and on.

I simply can't believe I'm awake and alive in the same country I was born in.

[Sparkly]

156. I know the feeling, TTLG

And welcome to DU. :hi:

[messiah]

160. Lol

If most democrats voted for Kerry then why would they be in agreement that their against the war or say the war was wrong and a mistake?. If you voted for Kerry then you voted for war just like he did in the senate, no excuses. People expect their representatives to stand up for them when they themselves wont stand up against the things they are aganist?. The voters aren't showing any spine that's why you have piss poor representation!, plain and simple.

[Q]

161. Most Democrats voted ANYONE BUT BUSH

....but that didn't reflect their views on the Iraq invasion and occupation.

Something that wasn't widely publicized within Democratic circles before the election was the fact that 95 percent of the 2004 delegates were against the Iraq 'war' and wanted an anti-Iraq war plank in the platform. But like with most other issues...only the agenda of the New Democrats and their friends ended up in the final platform.

Kerry could have practically done or said anything and Democrats would have still showed up to vote for him because of Bush.

But I predict that 2008 will be very different. Bush can't run for a third term and even if his brother runs...many Democrats won't vote for the party's support of the Bush Doctrine of aggressive war.

[Malva Zebrina]

162. the horror of another Bush term left little choice

and people voted and supported Kerry,once he was the candidate, for that reason.

They would have voted for Alfred E. Newman if he were the Democratic candidate, so pressing was the need to get Bush out.

I will not do this again, btw.

[Q]

163. It seems that....

...many Democrats voted against their own consciences and best interests in 2004. They knew that both Republicans and Democrats were promoting the same lie that the US was fighting the war on terror in Iraq.

That they have a different version of the same lie doesn't seem to make a difference to the bloody mess which is Iraq.

[seabeyond]

164. i could agree with this the time it was happening n/t