Records Show Senators who OK'd war didn't read key report

[JD50]

Originally posted by: JD50
Maybe this week I won't read any of the material that my professor gave me, then after I fail the quiz I'll blame it on her.

So what do you think guys, think this will work? If any of you are professors please let me know because I'll sign up for your classes immediately, since you would obviously be A-ok with that excuse.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Shivetya

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob: that Congress reviewed the exact same intel as the White House before they voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Previous threads have shown that the White House can and does selectively share intel with Congress, but now this news comes out.

Your kidding right? If anything it means all of those who signed it without reading it HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

So, your saying that signing something you didn't read doesn't make you worse than a "pro-war nutjob" If anything it makes you a "lazy ass nutjob" which is FAR FAR WORSE.

Frankly, it makes the pro-war people seem better now.

You do realize that Bush43 didn't read it, either?
Rudy hasn't bothered . . . but I believe Ron Paul did.
Romney was probably busy hunting varmints.
McCain read the executive summary . . . which means he got the Cliff Notes.

got links to support your assertions? I would like them.

1) Who in the halibut thinks Bush43 has EVER read a NIE?
Bush's selective reading and poor comprehension

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.

Hmm, he read a whole page!! And still came to the wrong conclusion.

The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

What about those mushroom clouds?

The one-page documents prepared for Bush are known as the "President's Summary" of the much longer and more detailed National Intelligence Estimates that combine the analysis and judgments of agencies throughout the intelligence community.

Hmm, I guess they call them the President's Summary b/c it's catchy.:roll:

I will leave it to you to do the rest of your homework.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: Shivetya

This has been a cornerstone of the typical pro-war nutjob: that Congress reviewed the exact same intel as the White House before they voted to authorize Bush to use force against Iraq. Previous threads have shown that the White House can and does selectively share intel with Congress, but now this news comes out.

Your kidding right? If anything it means all of those who signed it without reading it HAVE NO BUSINESS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

So, your saying that signing something you didn't read doesn't make you worse than a "pro-war nutjob" If anything it makes you a "lazy ass nutjob" which is FAR FAR WORSE.

Frankly, it makes the pro-war people seem better now.

You do realize that Bush43 didn't read it, either?
Rudy hasn't bothered . . . but I believe Ron Paul did.
Romney was probably busy hunting varmints.
McCain read the executive summary . . . which means he got the Cliff Notes.

got links to support your assertions? I would like them.

1) Who in the halibut thinks Bush43 has EVER read a NIE?
Bush's selective reading and poor comprehension

Two highly classified intelligence reports delivered directly to President Bush before the Iraq war cast doubt on key public assertions made by the president, Vice President Cheney, and other administration officials as justifications for invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, according to records and knowledgeable sources.

The first report, delivered to Bush in early October 2002, was a one-page summary of a National Intelligence Estimate that discussed whether Saddam's procurement of high-strength aluminum tubes was for the purpose of developing a nuclear weapon.

Hmm, he read a whole page!! And still came to the wrong conclusion.

The second classified report, delivered to Bush in early January 2003, was also a summary of a National Intelligence Estimate, this one focusing on whether Saddam would launch an unprovoked attack on the United States, either directly, or indirectly by working with terrorists.

The report stated that U.S. intelligence agencies unanimously agreed that it was unlikely that Saddam would try to attack the United States -- except if "ongoing military operations risked the imminent demise of his regime" or if he intended to "extract revenge" for such an assault, according to records and sources.

The single dissent in the report again came from State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, which believed that the Iraqi leader was "unlikely to conduct clandestine attacks against the U.S. homeland even if [his] regime's demise is imminent" as the result of a U.S. invasion.

What about those mushroom clouds?

The one-page documents prepared for Bush are known as the "President's Summary" of the much longer and more detailed National Intelligence Estimates that combine the analysis and judgments of agencies throughout the intelligence community.

Hmm, I guess they call them the President's Summary b/c it's catchy.:roll:

I will leave it to you to do the rest of your homework.

Oh cool so the President can use the same excuse and you guys will be fine with that too right?

 

[Jhhnn]

Oh cool so the President can use the same excuse and you guys will be fine with that too right?

Too late for that, JD50. If Bush had been misled by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld and a host of other lackeys, then heads would have rolled a long time ago. He got the "intelligence" spin he made clear he wanted all along, dovetailed it into a lot of fearmongering about 9/11, and found the way he wanted to invade Iraq...

And I'm sure the public would have forgiven him all of that, if the predictions of flowers in the streets and being greeted as liberators, along with the reconstruction paying for itself had all worked out according to the rosy picture painted at the time...

Fat chance. It was one of the best executed hornswaggles of all time, except for the fact that the Iraqis haven't gone along with it, at all... and the fact that Bush has neither the good sense nor common decency to back away from it.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn

Oh cool so the President can use the same excuse and you guys will be fine with that too right?

Too late for that, JD50. If Bush had been misled by Cheney, Wolfowitz, Feith, Rumsfeld and a host of other lackeys, then heads would have rolled a long time ago. He got the "intelligence" spin he made clear he wanted all along, dovetailed it into a lot of fearmongering about 9/11, and found the way he wanted to invade Iraq...

And I'm sure the public would have forgiven him all of that, if the predictions of flowers in the streets and being greeted as liberators, along with the reconstruction paying for itself had all worked out according to the rosy picture painted at the time...

Fat chance. It was one of the best executed hornswaggles of all time, except for the fact that the Iraqis haven't gone along with it, at all... and the fact that Bush has neither the good sense nor common decency to back away from it.

I don't think Bush was mislead, I just don't think he read the reports. Like he has time to read all of those reports, lol. I mean seriously, you guys claim that congress is so busy that they don't have time to read this kind of stuff, well don't you think that the President is a little bit busier than congress?

 

[BoberFett]

So in other words, even when the Democrats are at fault, it's Bush's fault.

This is why I hate Democrats, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for one even as terrible a president as Bush is. I'll continue voting for third party candidates while you shills on either side keep battling. With any luck Republicans and Democrats will all kill each other so the rest of us can get along in peace and quiet.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So in other words, even when the Democrats are at fault, it's Bush's fault.

This is why I hate Democrats, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for one even as terrible a president as Bush is. I'll continue voting for third party candidates while you shills on either side keep battling. With any luck Republicans and Democrats will all kill each other so the rest of us can get along in peace and quiet.

Comments like this, and your response in the Plame thread, are why people assume you're just another frothing right-wing shill. How is this the "Democrats" fault? If anything it would be Congress' fault, and if you're absolutely compelled to make it partisan, I'll remind you that Republicans controlled Congress at the time, not Democrats. I doubt the Dems could have blocked it even if they all read the full NIE, deciphered the implications of the buried caveats, and unanimously grew enough political cajones to stand up to a spooked American public and denounce Bush's war-mongering.

Personally, I don't accept the attempts to spin this as Congress' fault. Yes, in an ideal world, every one of our Congresscritters would read -- and understand -- every single word of every single bill, paper, and report affecting America. Unfortunately, pragmatically, that is simply impossible. The tens of thousands of people who generate such documents do so much faster than any individual can process them. Does this mean Congress regularly acts on inadequate information? Duh, just look around. Nonetheless, in the real world, that is as inevitable as the laws of physics.

Given the gravity of war, should more Congresscritters have made the time to read & comprehend this full NIE? Absolutely. But lets look at the reality of the situation. Bush claimed at the time that he would reserve war as a last resort, that he needed the authorization bill passed only to give him more leverage with Hussein. He also claimed he would work with the U.N. The Bush administration, having access not only to the full NIE, but also to much of the raw intelligence and the intelligence analysts, actively chose to discard the caveats and quailifications during their non-stop propaganda campaign to demonize Iraq. The campaign worked, convincing the majority of Americans -- and members of Congress -- that Iraq truly did pose a "unique and urgent threat" to us (Bush's words). The Bush administration also agressively smeared anyone who dared question their propaganda. In the face of such fear and smear, few in Congress on either side of the aisle would have the backbone to take the principled stand, even if they had recognized the Bush anti-Iraq propaganda campaign was based on distortions, half-truths, and often outright lies.

So, does Congress share SOME blame? I think so, and have always said so. Such blame is both limited and bipartisan, however, not somehow the fault of Democrats. The lion's share of the blame remains with the Bush administration since they engaged in an active disinformation campaign, intentionally misleading Congress and America in their rush to invade Iraq.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So in other words, even when the Democrats are at fault, it's Bush's fault.

This is why I hate Democrats, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for one even as terrible a president as Bush is. I'll continue voting for third party candidates while you shills on either side keep battling. With any luck Republicans and Democrats will all kill each other so the rest of us can get along in peace and quiet.

Comments like this, and your response in the Plame thread, are why people assume you're just another frothing right-wing shill. How is this the "Democrats" fault? If anything it would be Congress' fault, and if you're absolutely compelled to make it partisan, I'll remind you that Republicans controlled Congress at the time, not Democrats. I doubt the Dems could have blocked it even if they all read the full NIE, deciphered the implications of the buried caveats, and unanimously grew enough political cajones to stand up to a spooked American public and denounce Bush's war-mongering.

You're a smart guy BowFinger, but you have a problem with selective reading. Did I say the Democrats were solely at fault? Isn't it possible to share blame? Nobody is defending the Republicans in this thread. Everybody already knows the Republican congress marched in lockstep with the Bush admin. The only people defending their messiahs on capitol hill are the Democrat faithful. "But, but, but it was Bush's fault! you can't blame the Democrats, they were tricked!" Hence my initial statement. The Democrat's are at fault, but people don't seem to be able to admit it. Obviously you can't either.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JD50
Wow you guys are still here apologizing for the Dems? You should really let this thread die, its really embarrassing for you guys.

Both Republicans and Denmocrats should be embarrassed. The Democrats for their Reps not reading the report which allowed Bush to wage this catastrophe of a war and the Republicans for supporting such a incompetent leader like Bush who led us into this debacle of a war.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So in other words, even when the Democrats are at fault, it's Bush's fault.

This is why I hate Democrats, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for one even as terrible a president as Bush is. I'll continue voting for third party candidates while you shills on either side keep battling. With any luck Republicans and Democrats will all kill each other so the rest of us can get along in peace and quiet.

Comments like this, and your response in the Plame thread, are why people assume you're just another frothing right-wing shill. How is this the "Democrats" fault? If anything it would be Congress' fault, and if you're absolutely compelled to make it partisan, I'll remind you that Republicans controlled Congress at the time, not Democrats. I doubt the Dems could have blocked it even if they all read the full NIE, deciphered the implications of the buried caveats, and unanimously grew enough political cajones to stand up to a spooked American public and denounce Bush's war-mongering.

You're a smart guy BowFinger, but you have a problem with selective reading. Did I say the Democrats were solely at fault? Isn't it possible to share blame? Nobody is defending the Republicans in this thread. Everybody already knows the Republican congress marched in lockstep with the Bush admin. The only people defending their messiahs on capitol hill are the Democrat faithful. "But, but, but it was Bush's fault! you can't blame the Democrats, they were tricked!" Hence my initial statement. The Democrat's are at fault, but people don't seem to be able to admit it. Obviously you can't either.

The democrats who voted to authorize(only half) have the blame on them. The point is that they did not have the same info as the president. We've always known that because eve n with the "key report" they weren't briefed like the president. The democrats also didn't lead the war charge. 90% of the blame lies with the administration for the heavy pushing of the war and poor planning of the war and actually initiating the war. Congress gets 10% of the blame for going along with it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
To place blame anywhere but their own shoulders is absolutely mad.

No, it's like a sinking ship.

You are the Captain yet refuse to go down with it.

It's called cowardice.

 

[Jhhnn]

From JD50-

I don't think Bush was mislead, I just don't think he read the reports.

Of course he didn't read the reports- he knew full well that they'd been specifically formulated and edited to support his own long sought agenda, the Invasion of Iraq... The "presidential summary" told him that, and was then used to buffalo Congress into allowing him that perogative... along with a lot of other conflation of Saddam and Al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11, Orange Alerts, and contrived conclusions derived from forged documents...

All of which merely scratches the surface of the depths of deception used to facilitate the invasion.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: BoberFett
So in other words, even when the Democrats are at fault, it's Bush's fault.

This is why I hate Democrats, and I couldn't bring myself to vote for one even as terrible a president as Bush is. I'll continue voting for third party candidates while you shills on either side keep battling. With any luck Republicans and Democrats will all kill each other so the rest of us can get along in peace and quiet.

Comments like this, and your response in the Plame thread, are why people assume you're just another frothing right-wing shill. How is this the "Democrats" fault? If anything it would be Congress' fault, and if you're absolutely compelled to make it partisan, I'll remind you that Republicans controlled Congress at the time, not Democrats. I doubt the Dems could have blocked it even if they all read the full NIE, deciphered the implications of the buried caveats, and unanimously grew enough political cajones to stand up to a spooked American public and denounce Bush's war-mongering.

You're a smart guy BowFinger, but you have a problem with selective reading. Did I say the Democrats were solely at fault? Isn't it possible to share blame?

Yes, it is possible. Indeed, that is what I said. Your comment, "So in other words, even when the Democrats are at fault, it's Bush's fault," implies that you do not.

If that was NOT your intent, then perhaps you should work on communicating more clearly. You got rather indignant the last time someone suggested you were a Republican supporter. I'm betting 95% of the people who read your comment came away with the same impression I did, that you were once again shilling for the right.

Nobody is defending the Republicans in this thread. Everybody already knows the Republican congress marched in lockstep with the Bush admin. The only people defending their messiahs on capitol hill are the Democrat faithful. "But, but, but it was Bush's fault! you can't blame the Democrats, they were tricked!" Hence my initial statement. The Democrat's are at fault, but people don't seem to be able to admit it.

It's a matter of proportion. One doesn't say a rape was the victim's fault, even if she was dressed provocatively and dancing on a table. One might say she "shares SOME" of the blame since there are things she could have done to deter it, but most people will agree THE fault lies with the rapist. Similarly, as I already said, Congress "shares SOME" (bipartisan) fault since they lacked political courage and didn't do their due diligence before rubber-stamping Bush's misadventure. Nonetheless, I consider THE fault to lie with the Bush administration for the reasons stated. They're the ones who intentionally lied, and they're the ones who pulled the trigger (so to speak).

Obviously you can't either.

And you accuse me of selective reading? Try again.


By the way, I do believe it is the Bush faithful who tried to turn this into a partisan issue. The OP did not, focusing instead on Congress vs. the White House, correctly pointing out that Congress did not see everything they did.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From JD50-

I don't think Bush was mislead, I just don't think he read the reports.

Of course he didn't read the reports- he knew full well that they'd been specifically formulated and edited to support his own long sought agenda, the Invasion of Iraq... The "presidential summary" told him that, and was then used to buffalo Congress into allowing him that perogative... along with a lot of other conflation of Saddam and Al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11, Orange Alerts, and contrived conclusions derived from forged documents...

All of which merely scratches the surface of the depths of deception used to facilitate the invasion.

Oh ok, so its ok for the Dems to not read what the report and thats a valid excuse for them, but not the President. We all already know how much of a blind Democrat you are but this just confirms, thanks.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: JD50
Wow you guys are still here apologizing for the Dems? You should really let this thread die, its really embarrassing for you guys.

Both Republicans and Denmocrats should be embarrassed. The Democrats for their Reps not reading the report which allowed Bush to wage this catastrophe of a war and the Republicans for supporting such a incompetent leader like Bush who led us into this debacle of a war.

I agree, but most Republicans can admit this, I'm not seeing very many people admit this about the Democrats.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
So, uhh, blackangst1, you're claiming that putting the report in a locked restricted access location isn't restricting access, or what? Or are you claiming that the Cliff notes version offered by the Admin was really accurate?

Heavy reading of dense bureaucratese is generally delegated to trusted staffers, several working together- in this case, apparently denied... and why bother, anyway, when the Bush Admin is obviously trustworthy and honest, with all that honor, dignity, morals and values they love to talk about?

Are you intimating that there was some reason to not trust the admin at the time, and if so, what was it?

Not saying that nor did I imply it. The fact that it WAS restricted access is due to the sensitive data within those reports. The last thing the white house needs is a leak from some nobody staffer trying to gain publicity. What I *am* saying, is that the report was *NOT* withheld, and although they couldnt read it at their leisure over at Starbucks, it's their ****** reponsibility to read it. To suggest Bush withheld it and only gave a summary is assinine. Boo hoo hoo. It may interupt their 5 hour work day to have to schedule a time to read a bill having to do with war. Cry me a ****** river.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From JD50-

I don't think Bush was mislead, I just don't think he read the reports.

Of course he didn't read the reports- he knew full well that they'd been specifically formulated and edited to support his own long sought agenda, the Invasion of Iraq... The "presidential summary" told him that, and was then used to buffalo Congress into allowing him that perogative... along with a lot of other conflation of Saddam and Al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11, Orange Alerts, and contrived conclusions derived from forged documents...

All of which merely scratches the surface of the depths of deception used to facilitate the invasion.

Oh ok, so its ok for the Dems to not read what the report and thats a valid excuse for them, but not the President. We all already know how much of a blind Democrat you are but this just confirms, thanks.

+1

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From JD50-

I don't think Bush was mislead, I just don't think he read the reports.

Of course he didn't read the reports- he knew full well that they'd been specifically formulated and edited to support his own long sought agenda, the Invasion of Iraq... The "presidential summary" told him that, and was then used to buffalo Congress into allowing him that perogative... along with a lot of other conflation of Saddam and Al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11, Orange Alerts, and contrived conclusions derived from forged documents...

All of which merely scratches the surface of the depths of deception used to facilitate the invasion.

Oh ok, so its ok for the Dems to not read what the report and thats a valid excuse for them, but not the President. We all already know how much of a blind Democrat you are but this just confirms, thanks.

+1

The President is the DECIDER, it was HIS decision to go to war. There is NO excuse for the President.

I happen to agree that the Democrats share blame as enablers. The Democrats knew full well that Saddam was no threat. The Democrats, then as well as now, continue to play Washington politics over the war, just as the Republicans are doing. The rot in Washington is tremendous.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
From JD50-

I don't think Bush was mislead, I just don't think he read the reports.

Of course he didn't read the reports- he knew full well that they'd been specifically formulated and edited to support his own long sought agenda, the Invasion of Iraq... The "presidential summary" told him that, and was then used to buffalo Congress into allowing him that perogative... along with a lot of other conflation of Saddam and Al Qaeda, Iraq and 9/11, Orange Alerts, and contrived conclusions derived from forged documents...

All of which merely scratches the surface of the depths of deception used to facilitate the invasion.

Oh ok, so its ok for the Dems to not read what the report and thats a valid excuse for them, but not the President. We all already know how much of a blind Democrat you are but this just confirms, thanks.

Well being that they are the Party of Truman they follow the old addage "The Buck stops here" Which means it's all on the President because after all it was him who pulled the trigger.They didn't do their job because they trusted the President and his Administration..obvioulsy a big mistake as it has turned out they weren't trustworthy. Because of that they share a portion of the blame, albeit nowhere near as much as Bush and those who supported him and still support him.

BTW if they would have stepped in and stopped the Dub and his Neocon Handlers they would have been roasted by this Admin as being weak on national security. It was a lose lose for them but that's no excuse, thanks to them being afraid they allowed Bush to totally fsck us as a country.

 

[GrGr]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: GrGr

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
All this proves is that the majority of Congress who voted for it, did so without reading the bill and then even if they had, they'd be subject to the narrow view that emphasized intel that Iraq had a WMD program and de-emphasized the caveats that suggested no one was really sure either way. All this proves is that the roughly 25% of the senate and roughly 1/3 of the house who voted against it (a majority of whom were Democrats as already shown), were right to do so. If the GOP-led Congress weren't simply bending over for everything the President asked for, perhaps we could have had an intelligent resolution that demanded substantial non-compliance on Iraq's part before military action. This whole idea of Congress delegating its war powers is just ludicrous.

Not only ludicrous, it is anti-constitutional at it's core.

All this underscores how little true support for the war there really was. Only three nations had a majority who supported the invasion at the time (that is being generous counting the British who were quite evenly split for and against). Even in the US about a third of the population were against an invasion. Of course Israel loved the idea of hitting Saddam.

eh...most of America was FOR the disarming of Saddam and an invasion, it was doing so without UN backing some were leery of. Maybe you forgot?

First link
*The poll suggests that Americans' patience is wearing thin. Nearly six in 10 say diplomatic efforts to win international support have taken too much time.

*Public attitudes toward France, Russia and Germany have eroded sharply. More than two in three Americans say France is being unreasonable in its opposition to a resolution that could lead to war. More than half say France is "stabbing the U.S. in the back."

Sure, we wanted more inspections, but enough is enough
*Support for President Bush's policy of using military force to get rid of Saddam Hussein is still strong. In the latest CNN-Gallup poll, 59 percent supported sending US troops to Iraq. In the latest CBS poll, 66 percent approved. But ask the question, `Should the US take military action fairly soon, or should it wait to give the UN inspectors more time,' and you get a more complicated answer. In the CBS poll, 62 percent say give the inspectors more time. In the CNN poll, 40 percent approve of going to war without UN approval, but that number jumps to 80 percent with another UN resolution. Keating Holland, the polling director at CNN, cautions that these polls are not necessarily a predictor of public opposition if the US proceeds without UN approval, as appears more and more likely.

And another
*More than half of the American public believe George W. Bush is not getting a balanced view of whether to go to war or not from his advisors, but rather a more hawkish view favoring military action in Iraq, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll. They also believe Bush and his administration are dealing with the war on terrorism as a reaction to events, rather than from a clear, formulated policy. The American public are not in a rush to go to war and they are very clear in their opinions that they want hard, concrete evidence before supporting any military action.

Still, almost three-quarters of Americans approve of the way George W. Bush is handling the threat of terrorism in the country, and nearly three out of five also approve of his handling the country?s foreign affairs.
almost two-thirds of the public support a preemptive strike philosophy when the U.S. is under threat (including 47% who strongly support it). Roughly about half each of political liberals and Democrats also endorse the right of the U.S. to engage in a preemptive strike. There really is no dissent along party lines or political ideologies, except for the strength of support.
Almost seven in 10 Americans agree (including 44% who agree strongly) that the country should take military action against Iraq only with the support of the international community. This result is basically the same as was found in the same August Times poll when respondents were asked the same question. At that time, 65% of respondents thought the U.S. should not act without the support of a multi-national coalition (including 43% who agreed strongly). This idea is supported by half of political conservatives and 52% of Republicans. Virtually all believe that the 12,000 page weapons declaration submitted by Iraq to the United Nations will not be truthful. Two thirds of the public have no confidence at all that the Iraqis will give a complete and truthful list of their weapons and another 26% say they are not too confident (for a combined 92% who have no confidence). But more than three out of five surveyed don?t think war would be justified, unless there were glaring omissions in the weapons declaration, that is, a pattern of serious violations. Still, more than a fifth say the U.S. and its allies would be justified if only there were a few things left out.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It goes on and on. There was overwhelming support. And something to ponder...if GWB is the bumbling idiot most of you say he is, how the hell did he pull this off? I mean, how did he fool the whole world?

GWB didn't fool the whole world. That's one of the points. Maybe you did not understand my argument. In the entire world there was a majority FOR the US invasion only in three nations. Your links only underscore how little real support there was for the war.

ONE nation had an overwhelming support - that was ISRAEL.

The next nation had a TWO THIRDS majority (66 %) supporting an invasion (see your own link) - based on Bush's case for war. That was the US. One third of the US people scorned the chickenfeed they were fed by the chickenhawks - go them!

The third nation - the UK - was EVENLY SPLIT at the time of the invasion. The support then grew as the invasion progressed. Now any pretense of support is completely in the gutter.

GWB fooled enough Democrats on Capitol Hill and enough people in the US to pull it off. That and the fact that the US is the worlds only hyperpower was all it took.