I Simply Don't Understand...

...why the DEMS don't just admit that their vote for the war was wrong or at least misguided.

From what I can see, everyone (except for the president and his administration) was operating on information that was not accurate. Is there a real problem just saying that? In addition, the atmosphere after 9/11 made it difficult NOT to support the president.

What kills me is that many DEMS are saying that if they knew then what they know today, they would still vote to give the president the power to go into Iraq. I don't get it.

For me, it is crystal clear...
The administration did everything in its power (and beyond its power) to "sex-up" the intelligence in support of going into Iraq.

Is there anything wrong with the DEMS just saying that they were fooled both by some faulty intelligence and from the conspiracy to sex-up the intelligence by the Bush Administration.

Hey, when I heard that they could nuke us in 45 minutes...I even said "kick their ass."

In addition...aren't we (generally speaking) supposed to "trust" that our government is giving us accurate information...I mean ideally?

The response that the DEMS should make concerning their vote is NOT brain surgery. They were simply fooled by the administration...period...end of argument.

-Paige

Heck us common people have come out and admitted that we were wrong. Well I did anyway because I believed all the bullshit. I was duped. And it made me more passionate about getting these evil people out of the White house.


Whoever cannot admit that this war was illegal and that they would not have voted for it should not be a Presidential candidacy in 1008 - in case this administration lasts that long and I don't think it will.

Those that say that they would still vote for the war are being purely "political." We need less "politics" right now and more truth.

-Paige

...but was it specifically an up or down vote for or against the war, or was it a vote on whether to give Dubya the authority to go to war without congressional approval? The reason I ask is that I don't think the difference between these two things is splitting hairs. A vote of trust in the president to make appropriate and proper use of good intelligence and wise counsel is,I think, quite different than a vote to wage war.

...You bring up an interesting point. I thought that vote was to allow the president to wage war (but only as a last resort).

I think your point is that voting to give him permission is not the same as "voting for the war."

I think for the purposes of this post, there is little difference. Voting to give the president permission is in effect, supporting his position.

Maybe I'm confused.

-P

...opinion, but I think the difference between placing trust in someone to, not only be honest, but to exercise sound judgement in making some decision is quite different than approving of a horrendous decision that person may make. Dubya is neither honest nor does he exercise sound judgement. I think Dem leadership is guilty of foolishly placing trust in Dubya---I don't hold them responsible for his decision (which he'd already made) to wage war on Iraq.

The Repubs. always throw the question to the Dems., "Would you rather see Saddam still in power?" Then they feel the need to say of course they're glad he's gone. I wish they'd just answer that we replaced Saddam with many MORE Saddams (AND bin Ladens where there were none before.) Any Dem. who can't just say that they didn't know the source of the intel. like Bush and Cheney did is a Dem. I don't respect.

...why I brought this up in the first place is that the RW is constantly referring to the fact that the DEMS voted for this war....

They repeat this over and over again as some sort of excuse and to draw attention to the fact that the DEMS are (supposedly) just as responsible for the war.

The way I see it...When they say that EVERYONE was operating off of the same intelligence and concluded that Iraq was an "immediate" threat...they are not telling the truth. The administration was operating off of the raw intelligence and sexing up the info. Everyone that received the information was duped into voting for thee war.

Simple.

-P

I think I heard ONE Dem. say that if anyone thinks congress saw the same intel. as the president, they're dead wrong.

...up in the first place is that the RW is constantly referring to the fact that the DEMS voted for this war..."

I think we should take the opportunity to correct them. Dems voted to trust Dubya, which with hindsight, clearly was a mistake and Dems absolutely should acknowledge this mistake, and further, vow not to make it again.

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

...invading N. Korea soon, right?

The point was that nothing will garner greater fear in any of us than when we are told that one of our enemies can drop a nuke on us. It strikes fear in all of us.

Remember the "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud?"

It was crap! And you know it. They were NOT an immediate threat to us on ANY level. Yet the Bush administration did everything they could to convince us that they were so they could move forward with their agenda.

Oh yes...I forgot to mention...If they had all that yellow cake, then why were they trying to get some from Niger??? You can't have it both ways, pal.

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

Rule of Law, ever heard of it.

The Bush Doctrine is dangerous, and stupid...(and Illegal)!

My first (semi) flame ever.

...verbage you memorized from a recent Limbaugh rant by any chance would it? Sure sounds like Rush. Try doing some of your own research and critical thinking, Willy. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but coming here (to DU) and spewing pure BS isn't really appreciated.

:) your post made me laugh, opaite69...Good evening.

:toast:

And now, I'm off to bed... wonder if there'll be a link from willy for me to click on when I wake up... :rofl:

so that Saddam would be forced to let the weapons inspectors clean up
the dangerous stuff in Iraq. Remember, Bush RUSHED the war before the weapons inspectors were finished...
How can the Dems be blamed for that?

If the weapons inspectors were allowed to finish, there would be no
imminent threat...no threat whatsoever, therefore no need to go in.

The "Yes" vote may have been the correct vote to avoid a shooting war...But Bush screwed it up like everything he touches.

From Kos

Sen. Rockefeller: "I Was Dead Flat Wrong."Sunday, November 6, 2005

On Wolf Blitzer's show, Wolf showed Senator Jay Rockefeller's (D-WV) floor speech explaining his Aye vote for authorizing force against Saddam Hussein and Iraq. Rockefeller did the right thing and the smart thing - He admitted he was completely wrong in voting for the Iraq War. He said that if he knew then what he knows now, he would never ever would have voted for war in Iraq. He insisted that the reason he did not know then what he knows now was because the Bush Administration stovepiped the intelligence. In effect, he called them liars.

Senator George Allen (R-VA) said "mistakes were made" but now we have to win in Iraq. He didn't explain how we were going to do that.

And that begs the question, how can we believe the Bush Administration is telling the truth on "how we can win in Iraq" when they can not be trusted, either because of lack of competence, if you want to be charitable, or because they are liars, part of the truth of the matter, or both, the whole truth of the matter.

You can't trust the Bush Administration to tell the truth or to do the job. It is time that all Dems understand these central facts and take their positions based on these facts. Do what Sen. Rockefeller has done, admit your mistakes, and now act accordingly.

The Bush Administration does not tell the truth. The Bush Administration is hopelessly incompetent. You can not trust them on Iraq (or anything else for that matter.) To support the Iraq Debacle is to support incompetence and deception. No Dem should be for that.

Several of them. Now they're called dupes because everybody else "knew".

http://libwocyn.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_libwocyn_archive.html

Here are some interesting points.

The politics of FUBAR (scroll down the page to find this).

{snip}

Generally, the concensus among liberals and among some relative party outsiders like Gary Hart and Steve Jardine seems to be that by failing to strike sharp distinctions with Bush, Democrats are killing themselves just like they did in 2004. The solution, given how FUBAR the Iraq project has turned out to be (advanced here by TAP's Mark Leon Goldberg and here by Kevin Drum) is for leading Democrats and 2008 hopefuls -- Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden are most often named -- to recant their support for the war, declare a mea culpa and start advocating for a withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.

I dissent. While it's appalling that (a) the pro war punditocracy still has more cachet than those scribes who got it right and (b) that there are no Iraq dissenters among the presumed frontrunners for '08, the renounce-and-call-for-withdrawal is a terrible position for the elected liberal hawks to adopt right now.