Neither parties' leaders want to look back at how the Iraq invasion happened.

It's hard for either party to look back at the beginning of the Iraq invasion. The most blame lies with the Republicans because they had one house of Congress and the White House. They had media for their bully pulpit, and they used it loudly and well.

I do think though that our party was too easily led into the fray. They were being counseled by advisors of our former Democratic president, and that was a huge influence.

I think many were actually eager for the conflict, some were conflicted. But enough had the nerve to stand up and say no. They figured it out. We online figured it out, and the others could have figured it out as well if they so desired.

I remember a certain Larry King show in September 2002 on which former president Bill Clinton appeared. This was over a month before the actual vote to invade Iraq, yet he spoke casually of regime change. That was when we were hearing terror terror, fear fear all over the airwaves. I found the transcript of that show.

CNN transcript of Larry King and Bill Clinton



Yes, Saddam was weaker. We have been bombing the hell out of his country for 12 years. Of course he was weaker. And our party leaders had to know it.

But as I say, it is hard to look back.

The lies about Iraq were starting from Clinton's Secretary of Defense William Cohen, as far back as 1997. Big ones, big lies.

Iraq: A legacy of lies told and lie believed



A year later Madeleine Albright was pushing the fear as well.



In the Atlanta Journal Constitution, Editor Jay Bookman published an article that laid the whole regime change, WMD situation to rest.



Look at our Baghdad embassy, look at the one we are building in Pakistan. Bookman had it right.

And a belated thank you to the Democrats who got it right on that Senate vote on October 11, 2002. 23 of them voted no, we should not invade Iraq. Bob Geiger covered this thoroughly at Democrats.com.

Voices From 2002: Senators Who Voted Against War

He lists them, then he posts statements by them...important statements. Be sure to read them.



I am getting older, but I look back at the pride I had in my country as a moral leader in the world. And yes, usually we were. It's a disturbing feeling I have now, and one I can not shake off.

We knew Iraq was no immediate threat to us, yet we invaded and occupied anyway. Our behavior there has not been the behavior of a moral world leader.

It angers me that we went along just enough that the other side can blame us. That's infuriating.

John Pilger's version of Iraq in the year 2000 should have been enough to catch our attention. He wrote of the situation there.

We had bombed them for 12 years, we had sanctions which prevented them from getting needed medicine and doctor's equipment. The contamination left over from the previous attack was still there and making people ill.



Pilger compares the situation in Iraq to Rachel Carson's book, Silent Spring.



It's hard to look back and take responsibility. It's hard to be accountable.

Just as we are paying a very dear price for this one.

Excellent links also

The wanton destruction is horrific, the motives past suspect to evil lies.

And some of us knew and were silent and/or ridiculed.

Alas there is the same pattern in current events.

Clinton and his crew had every reason to believe Iraq was in possession of weapons of mass destruction during the 1990s. For one thing, they knew this because the previous two administrations - Reagan and Bush 41 - actively assisted the Hussein regime in the development of these programs. In other words, we had the receipts.

After the first Gulf War, the United Nations implemented a series of weapons inspections under the banner of UNSCOM, and scoured Iraq for both weapons and weapons production facilities. They lifted bombed buildings off their foundations and used a wide range of detection technologies. After seven years of work, they disarmed Iraq.

Former UNSCOM chief weapons inspector Scott Ritter spent seven years in Iraq searching out and destroying weapons and weapons manufacturing capabilities. "After 1998," Ritter reports in a book titled, War on Iraq, "Iraq had been fundamentally disarmed. What this means is that 90%-95% of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capability, including all of their factories used to produce chemical, biological, nuclear long-range ballistic missiles, the associated equipment of these factories, and the vast majority of the product produced by these factories, had been verifiably eliminated."

"Now, there are those who say that the Iraqis could have hid some of this from us," continued Ritter. "The problem with that scenario is that once we blew up the Muthanna State establishment, they no longer had the ability to produce new agent, and in five years science takes over. Sarin and tabun will degrade and become useless sludge. It's no longer a viable chemical agent that the world needs to be concerned about."

By 1998 those facilities had been destroyed and any weapons that might have been stashed away were pudding by 2003, a fact that weapons inspections in 2003 could have easily established (and did establish, thanks to Bush's inspector, Dr. David Kay, who bluntly stated after the killing had begun that the stuff wasn't there).

Clinton did not invade Iraq and throw the United States into a ridiculous, endless, bloody quagmire. He managed to disarm Hussein without taking this disastrous step. There is evidence that the Bush administration knew this:

“He (Saddam Hussein) has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...” – Colin Powell, February 24, 2001 in Cairo, Egypt

“He (Saddam) does not control the northern part of his country. We are able to keep arms from him. His military forces have not been rebuilt.” – Condoleezza Rice, July 29, 2001 on CNN Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer.

You can watch a video clip of Powell and Rice saying these things here.

But after 9/11/01 the administration’s rhetoric changed sharply, in support of the neocons’ dreams of invading Iraq:

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.” - Dick Cheney August 26, 2002

“The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." – Condoleezza Rice, September 8, 2002

“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” - George Bush March 18, 2003

“We know where they are. They are in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad.” - Donald Rumsfeld March 30, 2003

And so, Clinton and other Democrats were correct to have said until 1998 that Saddam had WMDs. He did, and Clinton’s efforts to destroy all of them were nearing successful completion just about then. We know Bush was aware in 2001 that Saddam then had no significant WMD capability because two of his top officials said so. It is true that some gullible Democrats were caught up in the Bush administration’s post-9/11 WMD propaganda, but neither Bill Clinton nor Congressional Democrats lied us into the invasion of Iraq. And they didn’t pull the trigger. Dick Cheney and George Bush did.

Why didn't he tell his wife that Bush was lying and it would not be in her interest to authorize the invasion than?

:shrug:

First of all, although the destruction of Saddam's chemical arsenal was accomplished by around 1998, this was not confirmed until later when GWB was president. And the Bush administration certainly was not candid with him about what they learned about Saddam's WMDs or about anything else.

Secondly, Clinton was among the gullible Democrats who fell for the propaganda.

And finally, Bill Clinton is a centrist. It was his general inclination to have backed the new president.

Here is something from the Propaganda Debunking Group that I used to refresh my memory on the subject.

Unfortunately.

certain well-documented facts of the historical record.

Specifically, the Clinton Admin knew AS EARLY AS 1995 that Iraq no longer possessed any WMDs, any WMD capabilities or any WMD ambitions.

On my mobile so cannot provide links, but check out the defection of Saddam Hussein's son-in-law to Jordan in 1995 and what he told CIA debriefers in Amman.

ALL OF IRAQ'S WMD STOCKS WERE DESTROYED BY 1991-92 ON SADDAM HUSSEIN'S DIRECT ORDERS.

"Who is Hussein Kamel?

Kamel is no obscure defector. A son-in-law of Saddam Hussein, his departure from Iraq carrying crates of secret documents on Iraq's past weapons programs was a major turning point in the inspections saga. In 1999, in a letter to the U.N. Security Council (1/25/99), UNSCOM reported that its entire eight years of disarmament work "must be divided into two parts, separated by the events following the departure from Iraq, in August 1995, of Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel."

According to Newsweek, Kamel told the same story to CIA analysts in August 1995. If that is true, all of these U.S. officials have had access to Kamel's statements that the weapons were destroyed. Their repeated citations of his testimony-- without revealing that he also said the weapons no longer exist-- suggests that the administration might be withholding critical evidence. In particular, it casts doubt on the credibility of Powell's February 5 presentation to the U.N., which was widely hailed at the time for its persuasiveness. To clear up the issue, journalists might ask the CIA to release the transcripts of its own conversations with Kamel.

Kamel's disclosures have also been crucial to the arguments made by hawkish commentators on Iraq. The defector has been cited four times on the New York Times op-ed page in the last four months in support of claims about Iraq's weapons programs-- never noting his assertions about the elimination of these weapons. In a major Times op-ed calling for war against Iraq (2/21/03), Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution wrote that Kamel and other defectors "reported that outside pressure had not only failed to eradicate the nuclear program, it was bigger and more cleverly spread out and concealed than anyone had imagined it to be." The release of Kamel's transcript makes this claim appear grossly at odds with the defector's actual testimony.

The Kamel story is a bombshell that necessitates a thorough reevaluation of U.S. media reporting on Iraq, much of which has taken for granted that the nation retains supplies of prohibited weapons. (See FAIR Media Advisory, "Iraq's Hidden Weapons: From Allegation to Fact," 2/4/03.) Kamel's testimony is not, of course, proof that Iraq does not have hidden stocks of chemical or biological weapons, but it does suggest a need for much more media skepticism about U.S. allegations than has previously been shown.

Unfortunately, Newsweek chose a curious way to handle its scoop: The magazine placed the story in the miscellaneous "Periscope" section with a generic headline, "The Defector's Secrets." Worse, Newsweek's online version added a subhead that seemed almost designed to undercut the importance of the story: "Before his death, a high-ranking defector said Iraq had not abandoned its WMD ambitions." So far, according to a February 27 search of the Nexis database, no major U.S. newspapers or national television news shows have picked up the Newsweek story."

The transcript:

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/kamel.pdf.

What we`ve done to Iraq and her people sickens me.

:shrug:

I would like to add to your list those in the House of Representatives who voted AGAINST the IWR.
There are many principled Democrats in our Party. The problem is that they hold no position or power in our DLC administration.


The House of Representatives Honor Roll

Six House Republicans and one independent joined 126 Democratic members of the House of Represenatives in taking a principled stand against the Bush Administration's Rush to War.

Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii)
Tom Allen (D-Maine)
Joe Baca (D-California)
Brian Baird (D-Washington DC)
John Baldacci (D-Maine, now governor of Maine)
Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisconsin)
Xavier Becerra (D-California)
Earl Blumenauer (D-Oregon)
David Bonior (D-Michigan, retired from office)
Robert Brady (D-Pennsylvania)
Corinne Brown (D-Florida)
Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio)
Lois Capps (D-California)
Michael Capuano (D-Massachusetts)
Benjamin Cardin (D-Maryland)
Julia Carson (D-Indiana)
William Clay, Jr. (D-Missouri)
Eva Clayton (D-North Carolina, retired from office)
James Clyburn (D-South Carolina)
Gary Condit (D-California, retired from office)
John Conyers, Jr. (D-Michigan)
Jerry Costello (D-Illinois)
William Coyne (D-Pennsylvania, retired from office)
Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland)
Susan Davis (D-California)
Danny Davis (D-Illinois)
Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon)
Diana DeGette (D-Colorado)
Bill Delahunt (D-Massachusetts)
Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut)
John Dingell (D-Michigan)
Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas)
Mike Doyle (D-Pennsylvania)
Anna Eshoo (D-California)
Lane Evans (D-Illinois)
Sam Farr (D-California)
Chaka Fattah (D-Pennsylvania)
Bob Filner (D-California)
Barney Frank (D-Massachusetts)
Charles Gonzalez (D-Texas)
Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois)
Alice Hastings (D-Florida)
Earl Hilliard (D-Alabama, retired from office)
Maurice Hinchey (D-New York)
Ruben Hinojosa (D-Texas)
Rush Holt (D-New Jersey)
Mike Honda (D-California)
Darlene Hooley (D-Oregon)
Inslee
Jackson (Il.)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E.B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kleczka
Kucinich
LaFalce
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Maloney (CT)
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Millender-McDonald
Miller
Mollohan
Moran (Va)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roybal-Allard
Rush
Sabo
Sanchez
Sanders
Sawyer
Schakowsky
Scott
Serrano
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (NM)
Udall (CO)
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Woolsey
Wu

I think that once again it was the Senate so controlled by Conservadems that even then gave Bush everything he wanted.

Something happened to the formatting and it dropped the state IDs from the last half.
I've "been meaning" to go back and fix it, but haven't gotten around to it yet.

This list is very useful in identifying those who I will send donations to.
I'm going to cross index it with the 93 co-sponsors for HR 676.
I've stopped all donations to the DCCC, DSCC, and the DNC (after the excommunication and banishment of Howard Dean.) I will ONLY consider sending direct donations to those who support HR676 and OPPOSE the expansion of WAR and INCREASING Military Spending.

We will be very careful in the future to only donate to those with courage of convictions.

...to keep in mind as I sit having some coffee reflecting on dems vs GOP (not documented as well as your posts are, sorry). Most blame falls on republicans in power:

1) congressmen were lied to by the administration. It's not hard to believe that the moderates among the dem leadership could be swayed by lies and fear

2) saber-rattling, talking tough, spreading talking points, etc (from clinton, cohen, and albright above) is one thing....actually pulling the trigger is another. I believe many congressmen were on board with the idea that the US needed to threaten an invasion in order to ensure compliance.

3) right leaning media was surely helping with propaganda...talking points and fake research straight from white house and pentagon. Public was misinformed, scared.

4) it's been shown that congress did not receive the same intelligence that the executive office had. caveats and disclaimers were gone

5) we suspect the WH or its allies were spying on, threatening, and in some cases harming (anthrax) dem leaders. We know the executive office was actively implementing projects that either favored or disfavored congressmen, depending on friendliness toward the WH. No doubt the WH was armbending politically and, virtually, physically.


However, I suspect that enough democrats wanted it to happen as you imply...many of them come from the same background, boards, and banks that the republicans do. They believe that American dominance is necessary and that dominance is achieved through imperialism, keeping corporations unbelievably rich, keeping other countries down, controlling public discourse.

5) Since paying attention has led me to become a full blown cynic, I'll say that congressional votes are choreographed ahead of time for the desired outcome. Some congressmen get to vote the way they want, others have to vote the way leadership and lobbyists want. But leadership knows exactly how many votes it wants on the "no" side in order to appear that the dems are in opposition and how many it wants on the yes side to ensure passage. Time after time on important bills, this happens and dem behavior is perplexing unless you take this view. Therefore, it is hard to label all congressmen either "braves ones" or villians on this and other votes (they also take turns being progressive heroes and villians depending on the bill). As a group, dem leaders didn't oppose war as strongly as we would hope.

6) It's pretty clear we had a rogue, criminal administration in office. The worst in history. With few exceptions, congressmen were not using the power of the office (media exposure, floor powers, filibuster, visibility, etc) to protect our country from them. There's a lot more that could have been done. They should have been combatted at every turn. Dem leaders, media, journalists, pundits all conspired to give them a legitimacy they didn't deserve. The 2004 election will likely remain a mystery...both in terms of why it happened and why it was allowed to stand after the fact and why nothing has changed in terms of election integrity.

7) The Bush Doctrine is wrong and immoral and risky on its face, but wasn't significantly challenged by dems as a concept. Further, what the WH was proposing was preventive war, not legal preemptive war. The case against the Bush Doctrine and against preventive war is easy to make yet clear discussion by dem leaders and media was absent

8) Evidence presented by the WH was always incredibly weak and easily called into question. Yet it wasn't

I agree with your post entirely and am sorry to say that you could turn up similar research with respect to many issues and why dem leaders have behaved the way they have. Seems to me that conservatives have been fully complicit and deserve much, much blame. It also seems to me that republicans have needed dem cooperation and have gotten just enough of it from a party that has walked a fine line between complicity and appearing to be an opposition party serving its progressive base. The question is...why?

I don't know...I'm starting to think there's a link between dem complicity in the political arena and the economic downturn. I can see that, starting years ago, leaders on both sides of the aisle decided that blowing the whistle on a rogue, criminal administration that wasn't duly elected could upset the apple cart at a time when we were just starting to see that a huge economic disaster was barreling down on us (foreseen years ago). Perhaps the combination was seen as a disaster of the first magnitude that could really cause the end of the US as a superpower. Perhaps this threat was enough to guarantee dem complicity...though this might be given more credit than due.

I pretty much agree with that statement. And yes, I do think some were intimidating into voting for the invasion for various reasons we may never know.

I remember when the bombs were falling on March 20, 2003. I will never forget the shame I felt that day.

I wish it were not so.

and it is has continued to this minute.

how much longer this war continues is up to president obama.