Where did the Democrats get their information that Saddam had WMDs?

Were they in the CIA? Did they get it from foreign sources? No. They got it from the Administration. If the information was incorrect, it was because of the source. Some people in Congress and the Senate, believed the Administration and some did not. The only information they had with which to make a decision came from the White House. So, who's to blame if the information was a lie? Yes, we can blame the Democrats that voted for the authorization but what if they did not wish to take the gamble that Saddam may not have had WMDs? Can we really judge them negatively for that? If they thought the security of the country was at risk, was not their vote a realistic one? If the information was a lie, then we must hold the liars responsible, not the victims of the lie.

I have been waiting to read such a post here! So correct!!!

But the republicans don't want to talk about that.

NGU.

A con man will make a compelling argument for his victims to part with their money. When the lies are exposed, the con man very often goes to jail.

I have no problem feeling sympathy for the Democrats who were duped by faulty information by Bushco. I do have a problem with those Dems who still insist on 'staying the course' because they don't have any compelling arguments for staying in Iraq. To me, they are like the victims of a con continuing to invest in a phony company after the con man has been arrested and put in jail.

I have never blamed any Democrat for voting yes based on the fact the the WH sold them a bag of shit and making it smell like roses.....B-)

He saw the same intelligence I saw. I do wonder if that is true? Whatever Kerry as a member of the intelligence committee is not allowed to say.

You do ask a good question? Who was told what?

He said "Republicans are saying we all had the same intel info but that is not true. We didn't have (nor should we have) access to PDBs, or some CIA info."

that the "evidence" was a lie--the niger report was a lie, the link to al-qaeda was a lie, etc., etc. surely we can expect our representatives to be as informed as we are?

Also, the professional analysts inside the CIA and other USG agencies were also quietly saying that the Administration was overstating its case.

The British and most other foreign intelligence sources were similarly expressing real skepticism.

If you wanted to know, the information refuting the chickenhawks was available. The problem with most of the Dems at that time was, they were afraid to be accused of being soft on terrorism and related subjects after 9/11. Recall, the Bushites were drawing an explicit link between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Who wanted to walk across that mine field?

congresscritters better informed. I have been emailing links to my senator with my frequent letters. If DU has such an impact on the electorate, then we should be pressing our reps with real information much more deligently.

just because some corprocrats voted for the invasion doesn't mean that nobody knew they were lying. Hell, over a million people marched to stop that war and they knew bushco was lying. I was one of them.
These people going around claiming they were "fooled" are just trying to cover their own asses.

You can't let them off the hook by saying they got the information from Bush.

They voted for the IWR because they feared losing their seat.

It's time we started talking truth about this. They were wrong to do what they did and they have blood on their hands. We talked a lot about this in 2002.

Remember this and never forget it: on March 7, 2003 (two weeks BEFORE the attack and invasion), the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that "... "... these documents - which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger - are in fact not authentic."

On that same day, Hans Blix, head of the UN weapons inspections team in Iraq http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/07/sprj.irq.un.transcript.blix/">reported:

"More papers on anthrax, VX and missiles have recently been provided. Many have been found to restate what Iraq already has declared, and some will require further study and discussion. There is a significant Iraqi effort under way to clarify a major source of uncertainty as to the quantities of biological and chemical weapons which were unilaterally destroyed in 1991. A part of this effort concerns a disposal site, which was deemed too dangerous for full investigation in the past. It is now being re-excavated.'

And:

"How much time would it take to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks? While cooperation can -- cooperation can and is to be immediate, disarmament, and at any rate verification of it, cannot be instant. Even with a proactive Iraqi attitude induced by continued outside pressure, it will still take some time to verify sites and items, analyze documents, interview relevant persons and draw conclusions. It will not take years, nor weeks, but months. Neither governments nor inspectors would want disarmament inspection to go on forever. However, it must be remembered that in accordance with the governing resolutions, a sustained inspection and monitoring system is to remain in place after verified disarmament to give confidence and to strike an alarm if signs were seen of the revival of any proscribed weapons programs."

So, no matter what the GOPentagon and White House was providing the the Democrats in the Senate and House, the BEST available intelligence BEFORE the war started was that Iraq did NOT have nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons program -- and that they were increasingly cooperating with other WMD inspections, that no substantial weapons or programs had been found. AND, that the UN inspectors simply needed several more months to finish their job.

Anyone who was listening and was not wrapped-up in war hysteria knew that Saddam did not pose a threat to the U.S. that justified an unprovoked attack.

Democrats who voted for the war are to blame for giving Bush the power to decide if and when to start this war. The best thing they could do is express that they made a mistake.

Democrats and good Republicans (if any) should not have voted for the Iraq War Resolution -- it is that simple. In order to move on and get our troops home as soon as possible, they must confess their error, thereby demonstrating the kind of REAL leadership we need to get this country back on the right track.

necks like albatrosses. As Senator Byrd said why did this IWR vote have to be done so quickly. The original liar, the *bush administration* wanted to be able to say it was bi-partisan. Allowing someone to tarnish your reputation with their lies, called for a strong outcry and response by those who were duped. It would call continuous attention to the original lies. A victim stays a victim if they do not stand up on behalf of the truth.

The outcry has come from those of us who were studious and prepared. We were not persudaded with trickery and a lying flaming bush in the first place.

essentially looked at these bogus reports - and that it was clear to HER that the information was unreliable and certainly not based on evidence. Which is why she voted NO! on authorization.

However, having said that and putting aside these facts of no real evidence, Kerry c/should have used what he definetly knew for certain during his campaign in 2004 - (forged documents (trumped up/manufactured evidence and facts to fit the policy for going to war in Iraq) to really blow this thing wide open then, and used his "new knowledge" to make the case that the administration LIED and DECIEVED Congress and the American People.

But instead, he became an appeaser to this fascists regime - before and after election day.

Now let's put Kerry the spineless whimp aside, the DLC are playing the same losing game. Could it be that certain players have financial interests in the takeover of Iraq and the region? Could it be that is the real reason why certain leadership in the DP refused to tell America the truth about Bush Co.'s reasons for putting American lives and Treasury into harms way, for personal gain?

And perhaps, Kerry never really intended to win this election in the first place? To do so would have demanded an end to this outrageous policy in invasion and occupation of countries that never threatened it's neighbors or the United States, because everyone knew Iraq had no weapons to defend itself from attack and invasion on the scale that the United States could bring to bear using both nuclear and military forces? I mean, we didn't invade Korea. We didn't invade Russia, or China. Their Nuclear capabilities were/are widely known. But instead we invade a country that was essentially unarmed and defenseless. And Congress certainly knew it. Senator Kerry absolutely knew this.

Maybe that's the angle no one dares to ponder, therefore no one dares to talk about.

Other Dems have had opportunity after opportunity to deal with this issue honestly or at least politically strategically - but they keep dropping that ball as if they would wish it would just go away and be over somehow by itself.

So the obvious question comes a day late and a dollar short, quite unfortunately.

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