Iraq War - Good or Bad?

[PassingFair]

Poll question: Iraq War - Good or Bad?

OK, here's the thing. I'm tired of this 800 lb. Gorilla sitting at the democratic table.
At every dem convention, meeting, club function or just in a group of dem friends, EVERYONE I speak with is and was against the Anglo-American Invasion of Iraq.

Yet most of our dem representatives gave authorization for it to happen.

At every state convention I've attended since we attacked Iraq, it's been business as usual UNTIL someone speaks to the criminality of the invasion, then the democratic body is ON THEIR FEET. We are mad.

Yet most of our dem representatives continue to pay lip service to our "spreading of democracy".

There is a thread on this topic now. An interesting one. But I'd REALLY like to see a show of hands here at the Underground. How DU YOU feel about our little imperialist outing?

[miss_kitty]

1. my rep did not vote for it

though my two bimbo sens voted for it every time

[Eloriel]

50. Please don't use sexist terms here at DU

or indeed anywhere. Some of us worked very hard to elevate the status of women so that we would not be denigrated purely on the basis of our gender, not even when we did stupid things. Some of us are heartsick to see the continuing erosion of the gaines we made, and the some days escalating sexism here at DU, even among some women (who for SURE ought to know better, and definitely do better).

[Warren DeMontague]

71. Right. Do What I Do...

Call them something gender neutral, like stone-cold dumbshits.

...and then wonder silently to yourself about people who are more concerned with playing PC language cop than with an illegal war that has killed over 1,000 Americans and 100,000 Iraqis.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

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

[MaeB]

76. You weren't told what to say, you were asked nicely.

[miss_kitty]

77. oh. well THAT makes all the difference, dear.

[miss_kitty]

82. I'll speak in a manner of my own choosing, not yours.

Next time, I'll refer to them as 'The Whores for Boeing', my usual name for them.

By the way-Bimbo started as a word to describe a stupid man, derived probably from the Italian for baby.

[RafterMan]

2. An unnecessary war

regardless of the intel.

[Skittles]

3. it's what pisses me off about every f'ing Dem who voted for IWR

WTF WERE THEY THINKING? I AM DISGUSTED. And those idiots who think we were "duped by bad intelligence" PULL YOUR HEADS OUT PLEASE. Bush Inc pushed and pushed until they got EXACTLY the "intelligence" they f***ing needed.

[PapaJoe]

47. Either way, we have lost.

Iraq is not an experiment that future U.S. governments will care to repeat. For the moment, even this administration is unable to repeat it, because there are no ground forces to spare for major campaigns elsewhere. Unless it proves possible to gain the upper hand against the insurgents, a bungled war will leave the United States weaker and not stronger. The confidence in American power that led to war being initiated without direct provocation has been shaken. Whenever the possible use of force is raised again, assurances will be sought that this will not be "another Iraq." And future interventionists will worry about how to shake off the Iraq syndrome.

[Eloriel]

52. Yeah, just like we learned all those important lessons from Vietnam

the ones that we aren't repeating now...

and the only one I can think of that we actually may have learned is "don't blame the individual troops."

[Borgnine]

4. What I'd like to know...

...is how all of us here, as well as the millions that marched across the world that winter, knew it was bullshit from the start when all of leaders (including Kerry) decided to put their trust in Bush (or play dumb because they felt the war was going to stay popular).

[Geek_Girl]

I'd Like to know too

I actually believed there was WMD's because Colin Powell and Hillary Clinton both said Saddem Hussein was a threat. I will never trust them again.

Link

[RafterMan]

11. WMDs are beside the point

If we had found great vats of anthrax lying about it still would have been a stupid move. There was no threat!

As tree-hugging peacenik Tom Clancy put it (from memory), "This notion that Saddam was going to load up these model airplanes with bioweapons and fly them across the Pacific..."

[poe]

64. WMDS are the point

not theirs (whoever "they" may be), but ours (whoever that may be, ain't me). only one country has used nuclear weapons on human populations (many have used them on non-human creatures as there are no "test bombs"). USA on 5 occasions (at least). hiroshima, nagasaki, iraq, kosovo (a clinton-clark presentation) and iraq revisited.
the rest of the world is rightly petrified by the goins' ons in cowboy nation.

[Bouncy Ball]

17. That's a good question

and I'll tell you what happened for me:

The very FIRST time I heard bushco mention Iraq in a "we're thiking about going to war with them" bellicose way, red flags went up for me like crazy and here's why:

We were still in Afghanistan. OBL had not been captured (ahem, still hasn't!). There was all this talk of rebuilding Afghanistan, making sure it was stable, getting elections done, etc and I thought "WHAT THE HELL? We haven't finished stabilizing and rebuilding AFGHANISTAN!!!"

Then all the talk about WMDs. The more fervently and the more often a person pushes a meme, the more suspicious I get of it. It was too convenient--the fearmongering on the back of 9/11, the whipping people up into a frenzy. The American people were PRIMED for it.

When Colin Powell went to the UN, I kept thinking he'd have PHOTOS (satellite) of all of these WMDs. I mean, if they were there in those kinds of numbers, SURELY there are satellite photos of them, right?

No. He had some pictures of a couple of trailers and the rest was smoke and mirrors.

That's when I knew for certain this was bullshit.

And that's when our Dem lawmakers should have known, too.

[LynnTheDem]

32. That's what fucking STUNS me!!! HOW COME I KNEW??????!!!

How come *I* knew BEFORE the invasion that the "yellowcake"w ere FORGERIES, that the USAF said NO DRONES, that the DOE said NO NUKES NO ALUMINUM TUBES, that ANY chem/bio agents left from pre-1991 would be USELESS GUNK, that Iraq had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with 911???

HOW THE FUCK COME I KNEW, and THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA SAYS HE DID NOT KNOW???????!!!

[theresistance]

62. I knew too...!

I knew it was all lies as well before the war. That's why they're all such liars. Afterwards they claim it was the "intelligence" that was faulty...at the time the "intelligence" was "solid"... blah, blah...The whole thing is just so bogus man.

[XemaSab]

48. Amen to that...

...that's part of why I wasn't such a big Kerry supporter.

From the get-go, I thought "Boy, this is a TERRIBLE idea," and I'd wager so did most of us here.

If Kerry didn't see that it was going to be a disaster, do we trust him to have the judgement we need in a president? Especially saying that he'd vote for the war again? Sounds like the second coming of LBJ, frankly.

(I know Bush** is WAY worse, and that's why I voted for Kerry. But still, was this the best guy we could put up? No way.)

[NMDemDist2]

5. a criminal war for no reason other than to line the 21st Century Robber

Baron's pockets

[0007]

6. Organized crime is good at distractions - but they ain't fooling

no one these days!

What could Mordechai Vanunu tell us if he could talk?

Putting Salvatore "Sammy the Bull" Gravano to work for junior would be too obvious, eh?

[Crunchy Frog]

7. I have to go with the last choice.

I could tell the Bushies were lying through their teeth. I don't believe that the Democratic reps knew any less than I did. I think most (though certainly not all) would have preferred it if we had avoided war, that they mostly went along with it out of moral cowardice, or political expediency. Then once they went along with it, they painted themselves into the corner of having to pay lip service to it. Or they do that out of cowardice and expediency as well.

As far as how I personally feel about the war, I've been absolutely horrified from the start. In fact, I've never felt as horrified about anything else in my life.

[mike_c]

8. I cannot condemn the invasion and occupation of Iraq...

...in strong enough terms. I left the Democratic Party because its leadership does not represent me in this regard and I will not lend my name or my support to ANYONE who stands with the neo-cons on this issue. The war is a criminal enterprise, and EVERYONE involved in it is a criminal or an accomplice to crimes of aggression. I am heartsick that the Democratic Party has not only failed to condemn this crime, but has embraced it as though doing so is a patriotic duty. The democratic leadership has become the party of good Germans....

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

9. An optional war, with a good cause (removing Saddam, liberation),

but poorly planned. I'll say it this way. Saddam's removal was a good thing. Period. Nevertheless, Saddam was not an immediate threat (no WMDs-better intelligence and patience would have revealed), and we were still dealing with Afghanistan, so there is the issue of planning. The argument Bush gives us is that we couldn't plan like other wars, because Saddam was an imminent threat. Then the WWII analogy pops up. ("We didn't have time to plan after Pearl Harbor!," they'll say.) A lot of the problems we're having are because of the rush to war, and the lack of planning. The cause is noble, the ends are just, but I have serious concerns about the execution, by the high command (the troops have done their job).

So, did I support the war at the start? Yes. Do I still think good things have come out of this war? Yes. Do I think Bush has f'd up completely? Yes. That's why I gelt Kerry would do a better job-I am a Democrat after all.

Flame away.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. Too bad we can't find someone to invade us

and get rid of Bush eh? I guess unprovoked invasions are generally a good way of getting rid of bad leaders, or at least of leaders that aren't liked by other leaders of more powerful countries, since we seem to be rather selective in our outrage.

Let's just scrap international law althogether. The biggest, strongest kid on the block gets to decide when a leader of another country is bad enough to justify an invasion. Until the biggest kid finally gets knocked off his pedestal and gets invaded in turn by a new biggest kid.

That sounds like a very sensible approach, especially in the nuclear age.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

14. Nice scarcasm, but that's not what I meant.

[Crunchy Frog]

20. I'd be curious to know what it is

that you do mean. I don't mean that in either a sarcastic or a hostile sense. I'm just wondering what general, universally applicable principle allows us to decide to invade and occupy countries on the basis of their having bad leaders. Do only we have that prerogative, or does anyone who is powerful enough. If its only us what is it, besides naked power, that gives us that prerogative?

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

22. I'm simply saying that Saddam was an arch-tyrant, with a history of

aggression against his neighbors. That alone isn't enough to justify a full scale war, but he he were an immiment threat, then that would be our justification. Of course, he wasn't an imminent threat, so the justification is highly problematic. Nevertheless, Saddam's removal was still a good thing.

[Crunchy Frog]

23. Well, I think the bad effects greatly outweigh the good.

In general, it appears that the Iraqis are a good deal worse off then they were before the invasion. For example, severe childhood malnutrition has doubled. Iraq is heading into civil war, and could very well end up with a dictatorship that will be much worse than Saddam's was.

Even if that weren't the case, removing him in a way that violates international law would be a bad thing in itself that would outweigh any positive effects IMO. Just ask yourself what they do to people in this country who take the law into their own hands and practice vigilante justice. If I took it upon myself to extrajucially kill a person, I would go to prison. Even if it were a very very bad person.

In any even, the world is full of petty tyrants, many of them much worse than Saddam was. And as I said, our outrage is highly selective. We support many of them, in fact we installed many of them. We supported Saddam in his rise to power. We strongly supported his aggression against Iran, even to the extent of giving him chemical weapons whose use is against international law. He could do whatever he wanted as long as he was acting in our interests.

Our motives in this were not noble, "the liberation of an opressed people from an evil tyrant". The motives of our leaders were greed, and lust for power. Making up noble sounding excuses for evil acts is nothing new for powerful countries and leaders.

I realize that I'm not going to change your mind on this, and I respect the fact that you have a different opinion than me. I just wanted to give you a different perspective.

Edited to add, imminent threat of aggression has always been seen as a valid reason for military action, but the notion that Iraq, one of the weakest nations on earth could possibly have represented an imminent threat to the U.S. is absolutely absurd. We might just as well invade Iceland and then use the excuse that they might hypothetically have been planning to attack us.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

25. As you said, we're just not going to agree on this.

I do indeed respect your position, even if I don't agree with it. I will add one final point though, if I may. While the aims of many of our leaders, past and preseent may be suspect in regards to this matter, I am confident that ever soldier, Marine, sailor, and military official that actually fights this war, for the most part, did their duty, to liberate Iraq, for their country, and for the Iraqis. I suspect that most decent people who supported this war, supported it for the cause of liberation. Call us dupes if you must, but I will still wgaer that Iraq is still better off without the Butcher of Baghdad, and his two sons in power, and ultimately, the world will be better off.

But that's just my opinion.

[Crunchy Frog]

29. Well, I respect your opinion, but I disagree

that the majority of soldiers and U.S. citizens who supported the war did so out of a desire to liberate Iraqis from Saddam. That was not the purpose that was being sold to the American people. It was sort of touted as a side benefit, but not the reason. We were told that Saddam was a threat because he posessed weapons of mass destruction, and there was heavy propaganda, both from the White House and through the media that strongly associated Saddam with the 9/11 attacks. It was because of that propaganda that on the eve of the invasion, something like 70% of Americans believed that Saddam had been responsible for the attacks.

The American people by and large, believed that we were going into Iraq to deal with a direct threat to our security, or to get the guy who was behind 9/11. After no WMDs were found, Bushco pulled a bait and switch and made it about liberation. Even with that though, around 40% of Americans still think Saddam was involved in 9/11. According to statistics that I've seen, the majority of Bush voters do.

I believe that if the administration had, from the very beginning, pushed for the war primarily for the purpose of "liberation", that very few Americans would have been in favor of it, especially if they had known what the cost, both in money and in casualties, would be. People in the military don't get to pick and choose the wars they are sent into, but when they're sent, they usually try to believe that there is a good purpose behind it. That's just part of human psychology.

So, while I can respect your stance on the war, I find your statement that most people supported it because they believed in liberating the Iraqis to be both disingenuous and intellectually dishonest.

I will leave it at that.

[Guaranteed]

36. Not to mention that even as it's being described now, it's a ridiculous

departure from our ACTUAL war against Al Qaeda.

We just shot ourselves- not in the foot- more like in the stomach, I'd say, what with the 200 B's gone, 100's of K's of soldiers tied up in Iraq, our reputation and good will from other countries destroyed, our focus deflected and over a thousand of our boys dead.

[PassingFair]

54. Wolfowitz has definitively stated that the WMD excuse was

Decided upon as the "way" to war.
The transparency with which this was done, and continued to be discussed, literally takes my breath away.

snip.> "The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy, we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason," Wolfowitz was quoted as saying in a Pentagon transcript of an interview with Vanity Fair.

www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-05-30-wolfowitz-iraq_x.htm

P.S. LOL! When I used spellcheck, it suggested "Halfwits" for the questionable word "Wolfowitz". Ha Ha Ha.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

56. Initially, everyonre who supported the war,

believed Saddam was a threat (some still do), and afterwards, I'm sure most decent people, despite the lack of an imminent threat, still felt liberating Iraq was noble. Anyway, that's what I felt.

[PassingFair]

57. But, but

the Iraqis didn't WANT to be "liberated".

I also take issue with your statement that "everyone" who supported the war believed Saddam was a threat. Bush, Cheney, et.al didn't believe Saddam to be a threat.

If the numbers ever bubble up to the surface, I'm betting that we've knocked off as many Iraqis as Saddam ever did. Probably more, given the timeframe of invasion and occupation.

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

59. I meant the "people."

Meaning, the American people. Anyway, you have a point about Iraq's response to the liberation. While a lot of Iraqis are welcoming us, and there is progress being made, a whole lot of other Iraqis aren't happy about our invasion/occupation. The Bush Adminstration said they'd welcome us as liberators, but it onviously didn't turn out the way they planned.

[LynnTheDem]

69. "a lot of Iraqis are welcoming us"??? All 2%, you mean?

Coz polls for the past year show some 97% view us as occupiers, not as liberators, and the vast majority want us to leave Iraq last year.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

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

[LynnTheDem]

70. Oh WAKE UP and get yourself INFORMED, already.

"acid bath",

Good God.

You didn't just drink the damn koolaid, you WALLOWED in it.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

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

[rman]

30. There have been and still are many tyrants, many worse then Saddam

If you look at the big picture it's clear that US support or opposition of regimes depends not on these regimes support of US interests (mostly economical) rather the them being dictatorial.

China does cooperate with globalization, is 'opening up its economy' to large transnational corporations. And of course China is much stronger militarily then Iraq.

Which explains why * invaded Iraq but not China.

A few of the tyrants installed and/or supported by the US:
Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Osama Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein

Some of the democratically elected heads of state opposed by the US:
Mossadeq of Iran, Arbenz of Guatamala, Diem of S Vietnam, Salvador Allende, Hugo Chavez.

[LynnTheDem]

33. No flames...just gentle toasting...

-How is it YOUR business, YOUR decision, to remove OTHER nation's presidents? Was that not up to the IRAQIS to decide? The Iraqis say it should have been their own decision.

-The "cause" was never "liberation"; the "cause" was "self defense", which is the ONLY legal reason for war; bush said it was self defense re WMD. bush lied. (And if the cause had been "liberation", the vast majority of Americans would have said HELL NO.)

-The Iraqis didn't want us to "liberate" them. Shouldn't "liberation" be up to the people?

-Human Rights Watch, the ICRC, and Amnesty International all say this invasion CANNOT be called a humanitarian intervention, because atrocities were not happening & had not been happening since the 1980s and the 1991 uprisings.

-How is it a good thing Hussein is gone, when things are WORSE now for the Iraqis and likely to remain WORSE for them for a very long time to come? Hussein kept that country from falling apart or into a theocracy for 30 years.

-What kind of "good things" makes up for the Supreme Crime of invasion & occupation of a sovereign nation that had been doing nothing to anyone, and has resulted in some 100,000 dead people?

-The cause was NEVER noble. The CAUSE was supposedly threat from WMD. The CAUSE was a pack of total bullshit. "Liberating" a people by INVASION and OCCUPATION & killing 100,000 is not noble. "Liberating" a people when the people didn't want you to, is not noble. It's ARROGANT and bloody wrong.

IMO. :)

[Name removed]

67. Deleted message

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

[LynnTheDem]

68. And I can see you swallowed all the lies

from the bushie Cartel.

Try actually reading the current HRW/AI reports about how this INVASION and OCCUPATION can't be called a humanitarian intervention.

While yer at it, read the Lancet report of the 100,000+ Iraqi civilians dead, mostly women & kids, 85% of whom were killed by US & "coalition" forces.

How about YOU go live there NOW. But watch out for that infamous purple plastic people shredder!

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[LynnTheDem]

78. And thank YOU for confirming what a total

koolaid drinker you are!

But then, confirmation for that wasn't really needed. ;)

[CTLawGuy]

65. like the war?

grab a gun

and a uniform

have fun!

[PassingFair]

66. Do you think that a war that is "Optional"

...can ever be just? Shouldn't war always be waged as a last resort?

[elshiva]

12. Modern warfare can not ever be just

with nuclear and non-nuclear bombs. This war is a dirty bunch of profiteering and I think most DU'ers would agree with me more or less.

[PassingFair]

13. Hmmmmm...93%

Methinks we are being misrepresented in Washington.

[fat free goodness]

42. Maybe so, but not shown by this poll.

"Hmmmmm...93% Methinks we are being misrepresented in Washington."

Or, perhaps, the percentage of Democrats voting in DU is higher than in the population?

[PassingFair]

45. I GET that...

I'm talking about our DEM representation. Is it 90% against our oil grab?

[fat free goodness]

72. note even there...

I suspect the percentage of democrats in DU is more against the war in Iraq than the total population that voted Democratic.
Having said that, I don't really think the Democratic politicians vote as their constituency would, were every question put to a referendum.

[Bouncy Ball]

15. I can't believe it even has to be asked

I even know non-rabid repukes who are against it now.

I know people who voted for bush who only shrug their shoulders at mention of the war now, instead of rabidly defending it.

Amongst the Dems/liberals I know, I can't IMAGINE a single one of them supporting this. Heck, they didn't from the beginning (neither did I).

[PassingFair]

16. I can't believe it either, Bouncy

that's why I asked it. I think the disconnect between average dems and our representation is so extreme that it doesn't even seem REAL half the time. Like a dream state.

[Bouncy Ball]

18. Exactly.

[njdemocrat106]

19. Bad, very bad!

Granted, I bet there's no hard feelings around here that Saddam is gone, but BushCo was planning this war even before they stole the 2000 election.

[PassingFair]

21. I think we should be bringing this up at dem meetings.

To often we leave it to the somewhat inarticulate or inebriated to blurt out truisms at our meetings. I bring up the subject of the war at every dem or dem-like activity I attend. After a rather astonished gasp, the entirety of whatever group I'm addressing responds enthusiastically.
It's time to make some noise within the party about this. And it's obviously NOT going to come from the top down.

[PassingFair]

24. Kick

For the morning types, because I really want to know how much of a majority believes there is a disconnect going on at all levels of Democratic politics.
I am a member of our county executive committee, and I am concerned that I may have to distance myself from the party leadership's approval and champion the grassroot's desire to condemn our role thus far and get moving on a plan for withdrawal.

[Stand and Fight]

26. Wholly criminal and debauched war.

Fought on the premise of an imminent threat that was never an issue, and placed on the backs of the United States Armed Forces under the delusion of a "War on Terrorism." This affront CANNOT be excused, it cannot be forgiven. The perpetrators should be made to hang for their treasonous crimes -- every stinking fucking one of them.

[orpupilofnature57]

27. I hate war, Elanor hates war and so doesn't Lula hate war!!!

[Clarkie1]

28. I voted for "deliberate criminal enterprise" over "bad intel" because

Bush didn't base his decision to go to war on any intel, good or bad.

[Debs]

31. OK

Who voted the first choice? Was it a joke or a wandering freeper.

[LynnTheDem]

34. I'd wondered the same, lol! And what's with the "bad intell" votes???

A whole lotta people KNEW before the invasion that the intell DID NOT say "there was no doubt".

The October 2002 NIE had dissenting opinions from real experts on every single "WMD" claim.

Drones? Bullshit, said the top expert on drones, the USAF.

Tubes? Bullshit, said the top expert on centrifuges, the DOE.

Nukes? Bullshit, said the IAEA.

"Yellowcake"? Bullshit forgeries, said everyone including the CIA.

Chem/bio agents? We dunno, said the CIA. NO, said UNMOVIC.

Tenet himself under oath testified in 2002 that the "threat from Iraq is LOW".

There was no "bad intell". The intell on the October 2002 NIE was correct. There was, however, an incredibly bad, corrupt asshole in the White House and his State-owned MSM.

[durutti]

35. At this point, anyone who's still pro-war is either:

A. Insane

B. Remarkably ignorant

C. Remarkably stupid

or

D. Evil

[killbotfactory]

51. That's the truth

You aren't even exaggerating.

[marcologico]

37. SADDAM WAS A GATHERING THREAT. . .

. . .to Iran.

[theresistance]

61. It's remarkable

How no one was saying that the US was a "threat" to Iraq. In fact, all of Iraq's neighbor's were "threats" to Iraq since Iraq was such a weak and defenseless country.

[FlyByNight]

38. Imperialism - pure and simple

Every stated pretext for the Halliburton War is false and/or lies. One-hundred thousand Iraqis dead and thousands more injured/maimed. More than 1300+ US troops dead and thousands more injured/maimed. And some Americans wonder why the Arabs hate us?

Even the invasion and occupation has been a disaster: the invasion force was under-manned and under-equipped; the morale is crappy due to stop-loss programs (back-door draft); advocacy of torture from the US's political upper levels. There were warnings about more troops being necessary but those generals were drummed out. Oh, and by the way, where the hell is bin Laden?

Now, thanks to Bush's election (voting irregularities notwithstanding) those 130,000+ plus troops in Iraq have been consigned to daily, surprise attacks and sheer indifference by the regime that put them there.

What a fucking mess.

[Massacure]

39. I'm glad Saddam is gone, but Bush messed the entire thing up.

He let Usama escape.
Opium is still produced in Afghanistan.
Not enough troops.
Looting of Iraq.
Missing explosives.
Abu Ghraib.

Need I continue? Overall I have mixed feelings about Iraq.

[IndianaGreen]

40. Iraq War is BAD!

As are those that voted for it, and continue to support it.

[robbedvoter]

41. Why poll this? What's next? Is torture good or bad?

[PassingFair]

43. I wanted to see if ANY dems thought we should have invaded.

Since the vast majority of our representatives in Washington continue to make a case for "shock and awe" and everything that has followed.
Even our presidential candidate said he'd have gone in, even knowing that there were no WMD's.
I actually thought the anti-Iraq war poll would be higher than 87%, as no dems that I know personally can get behind this war in ANY way.

[El Fuego]

44. I think Dubya wanted to prove something to Daddy.

So he was determined to find a way to rationalize the war.

[hansolsen]

46. This war was unnecessary, unwise, unjust, and unwinnable. That was clear

in the beginning and is even more clear now. This widely understood around the world. It is understood by about 80% of all Democrats. It is not surprising that Bush supporters refuse to acknowledge the folly.

But here is what is truly disquiting -- some 20% of all Democrats supported the war and still do -- this is what boggles the mind.

[killbotfactory]

49. A stupid fucking war

Waged by stupid fucking people.

The supporters of the war really thought we could just waltz in there and freedom would sprout like a fountain. Arrogant fucking stupidity.

Didn't any of these fucking moron's read the art of war? Or did they just see the title and say "ART?!?!? Art's for FAGZ! LOL! War is awesome!" God damnit this war makes me angry, and so do the stupid fucking supporters of this stupid fucking war.

[MADem]

53. They gave the weecowboy too much credit

The message with the vote was, go in there and BULLSHIT THEM. They voted for his having the ability to threaten convincingly, not to actually go and start a fooking war.

The only fault the Dems had was giving the nitwit too much credit. They figured he understood the NUANCE (dare I use the word?). They wrongly assumed he was brighter than he in fact is. Now we're all paying for it. That's our trouble and our strength--we tend to think the BEST, not the worst, of everyone.

The bottom line, though, is, we can whine about it, or we can work to get rid of the chimp, the chimp's minions, and the potential successors to the chimp. We're in this mess, like it or not. We have to find a way to get out of it.

[mvd]

55. Unnecessary war!

A criminal exploitation of 9/11 just to pursue oil and influence in the Middle East.

[Hippo_Tron]

58. We dropped a bomb on Iraq every fucking day for a decade

It's not like we had been ignoring a situation then all of a sudden Saddam had a nuclear bomb in his possession.

Bob Graham's explanation was perfect. He explained that he voted against the war because based on the intelligence he'd seen (and being chairman of the senate intelligence committee he'd seen more than the average American), he assessed that Iraq was simply not enough of a threat for a full-scale war.

Given the fact that Bush obviously over-exaggerated the intelligence that he'd seen and almost all of his case for the war has been proven false, it's pretty obvious that Graham was right, not Bush.

[baldguy]

60. Jan 2001: Rummy sez "Don't give me this crap about al Qeada!"

"Give me something that I can invade Iraq with!"

[bajamary]

79. Work for Justice

Pray for Peace BUT Work for Justice




www.4-my-country.com

[hoi polloi]

80. Addled, befuddled, and confused

I think most of our democratic leaders have been mislead with glorious promises. They have experienced they repub skulduggery more than we can know. Maybe if we knew the extent of the threats and chicanery they were exposed to we wouldn't impugn them.

[PassingFair]

81. Ever watch that film of Saddam having certain people ejected

from his audience, for torture, death, who knows?
Same thing prolly happens to our guys, but more figuratively.
My guess is that many are compromised. That's how dictators amass loyal followers. Being rewarded/awarded for participation (even FORCED participation) implicates them in the activity.
Two words for a LOT of dems: Global Crossing