Hindsight is 20/20.. Lets look at EVERYTHING in Hindsight.

[Crimson]

With all the blame of the Bush Administration for the Iraq war, I need to bring up some of the following facts which I brought up in an old post 8 or 9 months ago:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

We'll just assume for the sake of argument that the President picked a bunch of cronies to the National Security Council... lets look at the other 2 political bodies in charge of overseeing the CIA:

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

The job of these 2 congresional committees is to oversee the CIA.. there are 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI.. 18 of whom are democratic... Why are these members of congress not being held responsible for their failings?

So democrats can argue all they want that Bush mislead the American people.. but what they don't want to tell you is that 115 democrats ALSO mislead the American people.. and 18 democrats whose specific job it is to oversee the CIA _ALSO_ mislead the American people.. We have 3 branches of government in our country.. Why is one of them getting off completely scott free?

As stupid as Bush is according to you libs, how could he have POSSIBLY pulled this off? To mislead nearly 400 members of congress.. 37 of which are SPECIFICALLY designated as being in charge of overseeing the CIA?

Bush must be WAY smarter than you libs make him out to be.. because he fooled just about everyone it appears. Seems to me that if Bush truly did mislead all these people, that Bush should be held up as one of the most succesful politicians of all time.. and the people he fooled should be the ones being thrown out of office.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Crimson
With all the blame of the Bush Administration for the Iraq war, I need to bring up some of the following facts which I brought up in an old post 8 or 9 months ago:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

We'll just assume for the sake of argument that the President picked a bunch of cronies to the National Security Council... lets look at the other 2 political bodies in charge of overseeing the CIA:

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

The job of these 2 congresional committees is to oversee the CIA.. there are 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI.. 18 of whom are democratic... Why are these members of congress not being held responsible for their failings?

So democrats can argue all they want that Bush mislead the American people.. but what they don't want to tell you is that 115 democrats ALSO mislead the American people.. and 18 democrats whose specific job it is to oversee the CIA _ALSO_ mislead the American people.. We have 3 branches of government in our country.. Why is one of them getting off completely scott free?

As stupid as Bush is according to you libs, how could he have POSSIBLY pulled this off? To mislead nearly 400 members of congress.. 37 of which are SPECIFICALLY designated as being in charge of overseeing the CIA?

Bush must be WAY smarter than you libs make him out to be.. because he fooled just about everyone it appears. Seems to me that if Bush truly did mislead all these people, that Bush should be held up as one of the most succesful politicians of all time.. and the people he fooled should be the ones being thrown out of office.

Shhh......

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Yup, he has fooled many, but not all.

 

[DealMonkey]

Well, we all know the intel was complete sh!t now. Whose bright idea was it to listen to some Iraqi defector codenamed "curveball" anyway? Good lord, that's some good stuff they were smoking. Anyhow, I digress.

The problem here Crimson, is that you have to look at WHO precisely pushed for this war the hardest? It wasn't Congress, it wasn't the CIA, it wasn't the UN, it wasn't the previous administration, it wasn't any other country with the possible exception of England. No, it wasn't any of those people up there in front of the press and on every Sunday morning news program making the case for war. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Right, gotcha Condi.

Yes, in the final analysis, the ones who REALLY wanted this war with Iraq so bad they spent every waking moment building the case for it, was Bush and his administration. 'Nuff said.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, we all know the intel was complete sh!t now. Whose bright idea was it to listen to some Iraqi defector codenamed "curveball" anyway? Good lord, that's some good stuff they were smoking. Anyhow, I digress.

The problem here Crimson, is that you have to look at WHO precisely pushed for this war the hardest? It wasn't Congress, it wasn't the CIA, it wasn't the UN, it wasn't the previous administration, it wasn't any other country with the possible exception of England. No, it wasn't any of those people up there in front of the press and on every Sunday morning news program making the case for war. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Right, gotcha Condi.

Yes, in the final analysis, the ones who REALLY wanted this war with Iraq so bad they spent every waking moment building the case for it, was Bush and his administration. 'Nuff said.

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." jfk-1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." wjc - 1998

Yeah - it was just the Bush admin who wanted this war. You people are hilarious. You want to just pretend Bush conjured up the notion of WMDs one day and decided to go to war. Well, no one is buyin your BS. There has been reason to act for more than a few years - atleast when Clinton sort of acted(which I supported) the Democrats supported our action-yet now they wring their hands and claim it's all Bush's fault.😛

Pathetic really...

CkG

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Well, we all know the intel was complete sh!t now. Whose bright idea was it to listen to some Iraqi defector codenamed "curveball" anyway? Good lord, that's some good stuff they were smoking. Anyhow, I digress.

The problem here Crimson, is that you have to look at WHO precisely pushed for this war the hardest? It wasn't Congress, it wasn't the CIA, it wasn't the UN, it wasn't the previous administration, it wasn't any other country with the possible exception of England. No, it wasn't any of those people up there in front of the press and on every Sunday morning news program making the case for war. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Right, gotcha Condi.

Yes, in the final analysis, the ones who REALLY wanted this war with Iraq so bad they spent every waking moment building the case for it, was Bush and his administration. 'Nuff said.

"Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East." jfk-1998

"We have to defend our future from these predators of the 21st century. They will be all the more lethal if we allow them to build arsenals of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them. We simply cannot allow that to happen. There is no more clear example of this threat than Saddam Hussein." wjc - 1998

Yeah - it was just the Bush admin who wanted this war. You people are hilarious. You want to just pretend Bush conjured up the notion of WMDs one day and decided to go to war. Well, no one is buyin your BS. There has been reason to act for more than a few years - atleast when Clinton sort of acted(which I supported) the Democrats supported our action-yet now they wring their hands and claim it's all Bush's fault.😛

Pathetic really...

CkG

So, Clinton started this and Bush inheritd it. Hmm....

 

[DealMonkey]

Are you seriously trying to tell me that OIF was sold on 5-year-old intel? Oh man, that's what's really pathetic.

We rushed so quickly into war nobody had a chance to even verify the crap that mistakenly wore the label "intel" ... Who was out there day after day from October 2002 - March 2003 beating the drum for war? Who was it Cad? Let me tell you: It was Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Every opportunity they had they were up in front of the cameras spouting more faulty intel as fact.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you seriously trying to tell me that OIF was sold on 5-year-old intel? Oh man, that's what's really pathetic.

We rushed so quickly into war nobody had a chance to even verify the crap that mistakenly wore the label "intel" ... Who was out there day after day from October 2002 - March 2003 beating the drum for war? Who was it Cad? Let me tell you: It was Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Every opportunity they had they were up in front of the cameras spouting more faulty intel as fact.

No, I didn't say that. You made the claim that it was Bush who pushed for action. I showed you examples of kerry and clinton pushing for action against Saddam before Bush was in office, now do you want to continue to claim this was all Bush's doing?

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you seriously trying to tell me that OIF was sold on 5-year-old intel? Oh man, that's what's really pathetic.

We rushed so quickly into war nobody had a chance to even verify the crap that mistakenly wore the label "intel" ... Who was out there day after day from October 2002 - March 2003 beating the drum for war? Who was it Cad? Let me tell you: It was Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Every opportunity they had they were up in front of the cameras spouting more faulty intel as fact.

No, I didn't say that. You made the claim that it was Bush who pushed for action. I showed you examples of kerry and clinton pushing for action against Saddam before Bush was in office, now do you want to continue to claim this was all Bush's doing?

CkG

Did Kerry and/or Clinton lead this country into an actual war? No they didn't. Did Bush? Yes, yes he did. 'Nuff said.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you seriously trying to tell me that OIF was sold on 5-year-old intel? Oh man, that's what's really pathetic.

We rushed so quickly into war nobody had a chance to even verify the crap that mistakenly wore the label "intel" ... Who was out there day after day from October 2002 - March 2003 beating the drum for war? Who was it Cad? Let me tell you: It was Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Every opportunity they had they were up in front of the cameras spouting more faulty intel as fact.

No, I didn't say that. You made the claim that it was Bush who pushed for action. I showed you examples of kerry and clinton pushing for action against Saddam before Bush was in office, now do you want to continue to claim this was all Bush's doing?

CkG

Did Kerry and/or Clinton lead this country into an actual war? No they didn't. Did Bush? Yes, yes he did. 'Nuff said.

Was it not their policy that Saddam comply with the resolutions and that action should be taken if he didn't? Are you trying to say that Clinton and/or kerry was weak in the face of a "threat"?

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Was it not their policy that Saddam comply with the resolutions and that action should be taken if he didn't? Are you trying to say that Clinton and/or kerry was weak in the face of a "threat"?

CkG

I'm well aware that our stated policy was one of regime change among everything else that has transpired since the first Gulf War. Nobody prior to Bush in this country nor in the remainder of this planet deemed it necessary to launch a ground invasion of Iraq and do it by force. Frankly, we've been over this stuff a million times and it gets repetitive.

Looking at everything in hindsight (which IS the point of this thread after all), there was no valid reason to deviate from our isolation of Saddam and allow the UN to do their job of inspections. We know that now. To quote David Kay, "It turns out that we were all wrong, and that is most disturbing."

Which pretty much makes a mockery of every political speech aimed at building support for war, every line of crap uttered by the current administration, every effort to instill FUD by the administration.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you seriously trying to tell me that OIF was sold on 5-year-old intel? Oh man, that's what's really pathetic.

We rushed so quickly into war nobody had a chance to even verify the crap that mistakenly wore the label "intel" ... Who was out there day after day from October 2002 - March 2003 beating the drum for war? Who was it Cad? Let me tell you: It was Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Every opportunity they had they were up in front of the cameras spouting more faulty intel as fact.

No, I didn't say that. You made the claim that it was Bush who pushed for action. I showed you examples of kerry and clinton pushing for action against Saddam before Bush was in office, now do you want to continue to claim this was all Bush's doing?

CkG

Did Kerry and/or Clinton lead this country into an actual war? No they didn't. Did Bush? Yes, yes he did. 'Nuff said.

Was it not their policy that Saddam comply with the resolutions and that action should be taken if he didn't? Are you trying to say that Clinton and/or kerry was weak in the face of a "threat"?

CkG

Did Kerry and Clinton both want the inspections to continue and to alter economic sanctions before considering an invasion?

Yes or no will suffice.

 

[DeeKnow]

he didn't fool anyone... he just abused the trust ppl placed in his office. two different things.
and may i point out, you need to be smart to pull off the first. dumb guys are just as good at the second...

 

[XZeroII]

Deal Monkey, do you know what "Hindsight is 20/20" means? Do you know what Hindsight means? Because you sure are posting like you don't have a clue...

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: Crimson
With all the blame of the Bush Administration for the Iraq war, I need to bring up some of the following facts which I brought up in an old post 8 or 9 months ago:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

We'll just assume for the sake of argument that the President picked a bunch of cronies to the National Security Council... lets look at the other 2 political bodies in charge of overseeing the CIA:

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

The job of these 2 congresional committees is to oversee the CIA.. there are 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI.. 18 of whom are democratic... Why are these members of congress not being held responsible for their failings?

So democrats can argue all they want that Bush mislead the American people.. but what they don't want to tell you is that 115 democrats ALSO mislead the American people.. and 18 democrats whose specific job it is to oversee the CIA _ALSO_ mislead the American people.. We have 3 branches of government in our country.. Why is one of them getting off completely scott free?

As stupid as Bush is according to you libs, how could he have POSSIBLY pulled this off? To mislead nearly 400 members of congress.. 37 of which are SPECIFICALLY designated as being in charge of overseeing the CIA?

Bush must be WAY smarter than you libs make him out to be.. because he fooled just about everyone it appears. Seems to me that if Bush truly did mislead all these people, that Bush should be held up as one of the most succesful politicians of all time.. and the people he fooled should be the ones being thrown out of office.

we went over this before....
might as well put it in his words, since he's way smarter than all "libs" out there:

"Fool me once, shame on ... uhhh . fool me umm fool ummm..... i cant be foold again"



someone post a clip of bush contradicting himself about the war and get this thread over with

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Crimson
With all the blame of the Bush Administration for the Iraq war, I need to bring up some of the following facts which I brought up in an old post 8 or 9 months ago:

29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD.. this vote went 77-23 in SUPPORT.

The house passed the same legislation 296-133 in SUPPORT.. including nearly 90 democrats...

From the CIA's homepage:

The Intelligence Community works closely with the National Security Council (NSC) in the Executive Branch and with two Congressional Committees in the Legislative Branch: the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI). Other governmental organizations also interact with the IC from time to time

That means there are 3 government agencies who oversee the CIA. The NSC, the HPSCI, and the SSCI.

We'll just assume for the sake of argument that the President picked a bunch of cronies to the National Security Council... lets look at the other 2 political bodies in charge of overseeing the CIA:

There are 10 democrats on the HPSCI, there are 8 Democrats on the SSCI.

The job of these 2 congresional committees is to oversee the CIA.. there are 37 members of the HPSCI and the SSCI.. 18 of whom are democratic... Why are these members of congress not being held responsible for their failings?

So democrats can argue all they want that Bush mislead the American people.. but what they don't want to tell you is that 115 democrats ALSO mislead the American people.. and 18 democrats whose specific job it is to oversee the CIA _ALSO_ mislead the American people.. We have 3 branches of government in our country.. Why is one of them getting off completely scott free?

As stupid as Bush is according to you libs, how could he have POSSIBLY pulled this off? To mislead nearly 400 members of congress.. 37 of which are SPECIFICALLY designated as being in charge of overseeing the CIA?

Bush must be WAY smarter than you libs make him out to be.. because he fooled just about everyone it appears. Seems to me that if Bush truly did mislead all these people, that Bush should be held up as one of the most succesful politicians of all time.. and the people he fooled should be the ones being thrown out of office.

The Senate voted to give the President authorization to use force only after exhausting diplomatic means, economic sanctions options, and weapons inspections.

The President failed to do all three of those and rushed into war.

Now the Senate Intelligence Committee is reviewing the data used as justification for war. We just saw their report from the 1st phase. The 2nd phase will cover the administration's use or misuse of the data. Should that Committee have reviewed the data earlier, yes. Would that have stopped Bush from going to war? No. He already had the Senate's authorization. He pulled a bait-and-switch.

 

[smashp]

Wow, Cad is still alive.

 

[GrGr]

*Hindsight is 20/20.. Lets look at EVERYTHING in Hindsight.*

This is not so much about hindsight per se as it is about facts, reality and accountability. Practially the whole world (except for Israel) was saying (figuratively speaking) that the US was on crack when they invaded Iraq based on the excuse of WMD's. The fact that Saddam had even less WMD's than anybody imagined does not change the fact the vast majority of people in the world knew that Bush was bullshitting. Face the fact. Bush dumped a few tons of BS on top of you believers. When you get a few tons of BS dumped on you you do not hold your nose and pretend it is raining. Or do you? It is time for you to dig yourself out of the mess.

Blair is on the ropes in the UK. A month ago there were strong rumours that he was about to quit because Labour has been so damaged by the war. The only people not realizing that Iraq is a mess is the minority in the US that supports Bush. The fact that these supporters have the political accumen of people being dumped upon and who then stand up and say "Please Sir, can I have some more" does not, imho, speak well of Bush's base. That kind of behaviour is scatological, not logical or rational.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

What I find a little amusing about this line of argument is that you seem to be effectively conceding the war was a bad idea (otherwise, why would you be pointing out that Democrats voted for it), then arguing that the Democrats in Congress are as responsible as the President for getting us into it (which I'd submit is a ridiculous, disingenuous argument - it's not as though the Democrats were the ones clamoring for war in Iraq).

I'd suggest that if you want to toe the party line, you'd be better off saying OIF was a great idea (notwithstanding the fact I think it's probably the worst piece of foreign policy in American history), then pointing out that those Democrats who voted against it are "eggheaded libs" who are "outside the mainstream of Middle America".

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you seriously trying to tell me that OIF was sold on 5-year-old intel? Oh man, that's what's really pathetic.

We rushed so quickly into war nobody had a chance to even verify the crap that mistakenly wore the label "intel" ... Who was out there day after day from October 2002 - March 2003 beating the drum for war? Who was it Cad? Let me tell you: It was Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Every opportunity they had they were up in front of the cameras spouting more faulty intel as fact.

No, I didn't say that. You made the claim that it was Bush who pushed for action. I showed you examples of kerry and clinton pushing for action against Saddam before Bush was in office, now do you want to continue to claim this was all Bush's doing?

CkG

Did Kerry and/or Clinton lead this country into an actual war? No they didn't. Did Bush? Yes, yes he did. 'Nuff said.

Was it not their policy that Saddam comply with the resolutions and that action should be taken if he didn't? Are you trying to say that Clinton and/or kerry was weak in the face of a "threat"?

CkG

"Are you trying to say that Clinton and/or kerry was weak in the face of a "threat"?

Ahhhhh, you got em right there DM, oh yes, that HUGE "Threat" of WMD :roll:

 

[Todd33]

"29 democratic senators (A majority) voted to give Bush permission to wage war on Iraq if they did not give up WMD"

I had to stop there. The vote was not to go to war, it was to authorize military use if needed. It was to lend weight to the UN resolution. Bush said war was going to be the last resort, which was a lie. As we now know from all the people leaving the White House, Iraq was a top priority pre-9/11. They used 9/11 and fabricated WMD stories to get us to war. Fear and revenge, it was an abuse of power.

Let us not forget Chalabi, a person even the CIA said was full of $hit.

 

[Fingolfin269]

I just think it's funny that Bush is blamed for poor intelligence work done by the intelligence branches. God forbid the President actually listen to his intelligence gatherers!

'Sir, the Iraqis have nuclear missiles pointed at Antarctica! If they choose to use them then a world flood ,that only a massive Noah-bilt can endure, will occur!'

President responds, 'Oh, hah! lol!11!! You intelligence people are funny and I don't understand why I should believe you.'

Flood happens.

 

[Shuxclams]

Which story are we talking about? WMD's or the Al-Qeada ties? Nowhere in any report was there any mention of Al-Qeada......... As a matter of fact they knew damn well there wasnt a single tie between Al-Qeada and Saddam, but that was one of the reasons wasnt it? A 10 year relationship with Saddam, and training in chemical Weaponry remember? <sounds of crickets> Hello? anyone want to talk about that?</sounds of crickets>











SHUX

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
I just think it's funny that Bush is blamed for poor intelligence work done by the intelligence branches. God forbid the President actually listen to his intelligence gatherers!

'Sir, the Iraqis have nuclear missiles pointed at Antarctica! If they choose to use them then a world flood ,that only a massive Noah-bilt can endure, will occur!'

President responds, 'Oh, hah! lol!11!! You intelligence people are funny and I don't understand why I should believe you.'

Flood happens.

You keep forgetting that the crux of the "evidence" used as justification for war came via the INC, an organization the CIA kicked out back in 1996 but that Wolfowitz/Feith brought back in under their DIA. And, Wolfowitz/Feith were using unvetted intelligence data from tohe CIA as part of their reports.

And, you honestly think the INC somehow magically became credible?

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Are you seriously trying to tell me that OIF was sold on 5-year-old intel? Oh man, that's what's really pathetic.

We rushed so quickly into war nobody had a chance to even verify the crap that mistakenly wore the label "intel" ... Who was out there day after day from October 2002 - March 2003 beating the drum for war? Who was it Cad? Let me tell you: It was Rice, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Bush. Every opportunity they had they were up in front of the cameras spouting more faulty intel as fact.

No, I didn't say that. You made the claim that it was Bush who pushed for action.

And he was 100% correct making that claim! The Bush administration is responsible for "beating the drums of war" so loudly, that by the time the legislation came before Congress in November 2003, not voting in favor of it would look traitorous! Senator Howard Byrd, the oldest Senator, from West Virginia did vote against it and did speak out against it and did put all types of anti-(this particular Iraq)war stuff on his web-page and was blasted by the press and the administration for being a traitor and a crazy old man. He did, along with others at the time, say the Bush administration was making all of this crap up, and anyone who was not a total idiot realized Byrd was right. However, the press and total idiots like yourself, using strong words, like traitor and anti-American to attack anyone who opposed the war convinced most Democrats that it would be political suicide to vote against Bush's war for oil, just like it would have been for them to vote against the Patriot Act even though there is tons of crap in it that Democrats hate.

Everything goes in the memory-hole with your type, if it doesn't go along with your sheep belief-system. At the time, there were virtually no politicians with the balls to speak out against Bush, because Bush's approval for his war on terror was over 90% and his personal approval rating was above 85%.

Also, you have to remember that every single person in the House and the Senate is a politician! Politicians, Democrat and Republican alike, do what is best for their career and their own wallet. You pretend in your feeble mind that only Democrats are politicians and that Republicans are some type of "perfect servants of the people" that have no political motivations for what they do.

I showed you examples of kerry and clinton pushing for action against Saddam before Bush was in office, now do you want to continue to claim this was all Bush's doing?

CkG

Politicians frequently say what people want to hear. That's the number one part of being a politician. For 13 years the US has been accusing Iraq of "possessing WMD and intending to use them" although Iraq got rid of them all (not that they had a huge arsenal like the US does) by 1994. Many Democrats and Republicans have said over the past 13 years that they believed Iraq still had WMD and maybe they really believed that, or maybe they were saying it because politically motivated to do so. It has not been true for 10 years, though.

For 12 year, politicians kept the door open to a renewed war in Iraq because of American and multi-national interests (i.e., Big Oil and the Military-Industrial Complex) who wanted an eventual American puppet government in Iraq. Every politician, not just Republicans, is influenced by those interests. However, Bush, who is completely beholden to those interests, unlike the majority of Democrats who are only partly beholden to those interests, would let nothing stop him from "taking care of business" for those interests. He straight up lied to everybody and he used his popularity to destroy his enemies by calling them traitors if they opposed him. He pushed intel employees, his own Cabinet and employees of the executive branch, and Congressmen to lie just to keep their jobs. He destroyed the careers of agents, politicians and bureaucrats who opposed him, whether they were Democrat or Republican, by spreading lies or by breaking their anonymity or by just firing them.

This would not have happened if the great brainwashed, er I mean unwashed, such as yourself were capable of forming your own thoughts instead of merely repeating whatever Bush wanted you to. If you hadn't acted like anyone who thought Bush was less than perfect was a heathen and a traitor and anti-American and even a terrorist. Too bad for the thousand soldiers that died and the 15,000 Iraqi people that died because you and the millions of automatons like you are so damn gullible. Too bad for you, your kids and your grandkids, too, since we (middle-class America, even the so-called traitors who opposed the war) will all be footing the bill for decades.

Your BS about the Democrats being responsible for the war in Iraq just as much as the Republicans (as Bush) might be worth something if the political climate in 2003 had allowed them to do anything but support the President. But it didn't, so your BS is just that: BS.