IWR day in GD -- the closer fitz gets to revealing the "big lie" and

the lengths the bush admin went to sell the war, the more it is the Dems fault, I guess.

the word LIE or it does not count, it becomes more and more difficult to believe these people are real.

they just turn it around and say, 'well they all do'. It's a reflection glass.

I think if we could somehow say, "we trusted them; they betrayed our trust and yours too." then it puts all of us on equal grounds. It may pull indy's more towards our side.

Because after 9-11 we wanted to TRUST our President--even though he'd been selected. But as these four years have passed, time and time the leadership in the W.H. and the Congress (for the most part) has layed another betrayal upon the last one, just like a seven layer cake. (nigerian cake!)

NOW...admittedly, not all Dems have continued the charade of following the White House's demands and those people must be called "Protectors". Heck, call them "knights in shining armor..trying to save America from the forces of evil and destruction."

I'm for it! How about you?

The American people were for the initial incursion into Iraq because they thought it was a war that would prevent war. (Saddam had WMDs which he would use against us.) Most Democrats voted to give the PResident the power to pursue this and to find out if this was indeed the case. Bush and his team are completely responsible for the debacle that has followed.

I cannot understand why some Democrats continue to equate that IWR vote as being morally equal to what Bush did. It is not. (I was mad at Kerry, as a constitutent for that IWR vote. But I knew he wasn't voting for a war, he was voting, in a very dangerous time, for the President to get serious backing for checking out the WMD threats.) Even when I was angry at Kerry for the vote, I never made the mistake of confusing his view with that of the lying neocons. It's just ludicrous to do this. Kerry didn't screw this up, Bush did.

I don't think these people are Democrats. I sometimes think they are just disgruntled. That's all, devoid of anything but a self-righteous sense of moral justification. We were right. Others weren't. So anyone who didn't vote against the IWR was wrong for all time and has not moral voice. This is bunk.

I can see that voting either way was wrong depending on why people were voting that way.

For a no vote, I assume there were some Senators absolutely certain either that Bush would go to war anyway and they were against it in ALL CIRCUMSTANCES - possibly because it would divert attention from Afghanistan. The question for them is, what was the answer if Iraq either had or was trying to get WMD? The situation was not stable and sanctions were likely to be dropped (and there were good moral reasons to demand dropping them.) How could the US via the UN demand inspections without some leverage?

The odd thing is the IWR did lead to a better situation - until Bush arbitrarily invaded. There were invasive inspectors and the Iraqis were destroying their most powerful missiles. Saddam asked that the destruction not be televised - some think because it would weaken him in Iraq. Would this have happened without the IWR passing?

If the resolution failed, Bush would have complained that the Democrats and some Republicans hindered his diplomacy, possibly arguing that he was left with war as the only option - giving him an out to blame others.

The Bush administration was also arguing that Clinton didn't come to Congress before Kosovo and other interventions and Iraq was similar. The fact that a resolution from 1998 favored regime change in Iraq (presumably by the Iraqis) did not work in favor of avoiding war.

It can't be 'misrepresented', or 'didn't tell the truth' or 'misled'. It has to be the 'L' word.

which is a conscience effort to lie. Not just a white lie.

But even that word was not acceptable.