Stunning admission: Most GOP members of Congress think Iraq War a mistake.

[beachmom]

Wow. It's one thing for them to say this privately (I think they have for years), but this is really remarkable:

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2010/03/18/gop-congressmen-most-republicans-now-think-iraq-war-was-a-mistake/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CatoHomepageHeadlines+%28Cato+Headlines%29&utm_content=Twitter

The discussion was moderated by Grover Norquist, who asked the congressmen how many of their colleagues now think the war was a mistake.

Rohrabacher:

“I will say that the decision to go in, in retrospect, almost all of us think that was a horrible mistake. …Now that we know that it cost a trillion dollars, and all of these years, and all of these lives, and all of this blood… all I can say is everyone I know thinks it was a mistake to go in now.”

McClintock:

“I think everyone would agree that Iraq was a mistake.”

It goes to show politicians never say what they really think. All of that "cut and run" rhetoric was essentially BS. I mean what is real about these people? They're probably for health care reform, too.

[karynnj]

1. The question is when they reached that conclusion

I think that among Democrats, I would be willing to bet that all but a few believed it a bad idea by late 2004. I suspect that it might not have been much more than half that thought it was a bad idea in early 2003 before the war or when the war first started. (The NYT tacitly seemed to believe it in January 2005 when they praised "spreading democracy" to the heights - ignoring that those were reasons Bush denied through the election. An address that some Democrats - including Biden, who said it was JFK with a Texan twang - praised.)

With the Republicans, I would suspect that the isolationist non-neocon part of the party might have really had reservations - completely unexpressed - even before the war started, but their values were to follow the CIC. I suspect that the neo cons and neolibs might both have been intrigued with the idea while other parts of each party quickly were not convinced it was a good idea.

What is surprising is this being said - as compared to the awful Newsweek "mission accomplished" cover recently that suggested Bush did succeed in getting a thriving democracy in Iraq.

[beachmom]

2. This is also interesting. There was never overwhelming support for the Iraq War,

even on the eve of the invasion:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20100405/mitchell

The seventh anniversary of the start of the Iraq War dawned today with very little notice in the media, despite the huge (and ongoing) costs of the war, not the least of which the nearly 4,400 dead US military personnel and at least 100,000 deceased Iraqi civilians. What we have heard from commentators, again, this year is that the United States went to war with the overwhelming support of the public and the press. Actually, this is a myth.

It's true that polls showed that Americans believed Saddam had WMD--and no wonder, given the deceitful propaganda from the Bush administration--and that they backed an invasion if it came to that. But most surveys also showed a clear split between those who wanted to go to war soon, and those who wanted to wait for more diplomacy or to give the United Nations inspectors more time to work (remember, they had found nothing and then were withdrawn by the president).

Another myth: the nation's newspapers on their editorial pages backed the invasion strongly.

I think what happened was there were a lot of loud mouths saying you were a traitor if you didn't back the war and the President, and that bred fear among people to stay quiet. Recall, Michael Moore speaking out against the war at the Oscars and being booed . . . by a Hollywood crowd. Also remember the way the Dixie Chicks were treated. It really was not about the whole country backing the war. It was about the dissenters being silenced.

[karynnj]

3. I do remember that period

I went with my oldest two daughters to a big anti-war rally in DC in either January or February 2003. My husband and my youngest stayed home because she had Hebrew school. It was really weird as someone who went to college in the late 60s/early 70s to again be at a peace rally, but with my 2 teens. I watched the polls and the anti-war numbers grew, and as your quote says the people urging waiting really did get close to 50%.

I actually had a lot of hope especially when Saddam allowed his missiles to be destroyed - they flew beyond the agreed limit with no payload - though with any payload they did no go beyond the limit. I wish more Democrats - and more Republicans - would have spoken out more in that time period. Kerry did speak out out, in more than just the Georgetown speech, but even he could have used the sharper words he used later that year. But, the media then, as now chose what to amplify.

I don't think Bush would have listened, but more people would remember that by March 2003, much had happened since the fall - in particular inspectors were in for the first time in 4 years. Rove in his appearances - spoke of even Boxer and Kennedy, who voted no, both spoke of the possibility that they had WMD and he spoke of Gore saying so in September 2002 (ignoring that Gore spoke against war). In each of the appearances I saw, NONE of the interviewers mentioned that there were 5 or 6 months between the comments (and the vote) and Bush's decision. I hope someone eventually calls him on it.