Does it ever strike anyone as wierd

that people in the senate and the house couldn't figure out that Iraq wasn't an immenent threat, but we could figure it out by reading the newspaper and the internet. These people are either really stupid, really naive, or really dishonest.

that's why they don't like the internet these days...

I think they are bought and sold.

I wonder how much Campaign Contributions circumvent our "democracy" now?

that from the comfort of his living room, he could tell that the admin was full of it, but members of Congress couldn't figure it out. I think he got that line here at DU.

Most of us could tell the threat was nothing but product to be released late in the year to bolster flagging polls and to fulfill the PNAC promise. And that was just by doing some selective reading and and a few googles when youi wanted more information. An hour or twoa day. These pols have staffers and are full time stewards of the public good and somehow they all "missed" that we had no need to go into Iraq. We, as usual,have been had.
:think:

I think they many of them may just be lacking in courage, intimidated by patriotic fervor.

increase our budget and focus on terrorism, not a go**amned Missile Shield! If I could figure that out, why didn't *?

What more can I say? I'm speechless when I so much as think about it.

It was OBVIOUS. They were OBVIOUSLY lying. It seemed like any fool could see that.

the world shouting a loud NO! Tough to miss.

Most of our congress critters lacked the courage to go against a popular President. The other thing is what if they voted no and Sadam turned around and nuked us or something. Some are bought and paid for by people who profit from war.

Although both of them are terrible in communicating their thought process on the whole thing. The resolution was not marketed as an automatic green light for war.(even though we all knew it would be used exactly for that purpose) It was marketed as a fulcrum to put pressure on the UNSC to pass a second resolution and show Saddam that the US was unified in it's resolve. Their mistake was in trusting ShrubCo, not in voting for the res.. Just my .02.

Jay

...during MTP, Russert showed a video of Kerry giving a scathing WMD speech including passages about the amount of material Saddam had stockpiled. Kerry seemed fine with the speech, although to be fair, what could he say? (BTW, I was unimpressed)

There could be another demension to the argument: What (mis)information were these guys being feed by Rummy-Cheney behind closed doors? If someone were filling you to the brim with garbage, it is likely that garbage would come spewing forth.

Leverage: Yes

Another part of the problem with dealing with the regime is the order in which they rolled out the war. Normally, there should have been diplomacy--diplomacy---diplomacy---(stick on table)---diplomacy--threat.

The regime did stick--threat---rejection of diplomacy. IOW, the stick was pounding the table before the resolution hit the Senate floor. Now this is of course bad policy, but moreover, it was a policy that no one had ever seen before.

Some folks at the Clarkblog have found Clark's testimony to congress, which clearly follows the path you laid out: use the resolution to leverage the diplomacy and reinstitute the inspectors. He said there were many steps that could be taken before war. He also clearly states that a war would bolster terrorism. Clark is very detailed and often speaks in the abstract which makes his words easy to twist. But then again, diplomacy is not a sound bite---well, unless you're a smirking chimp.

Now the strangest thing about Clark's testimony is that it keeps appearing and disappearing from the government's records. All day yesterday the bloggers were mystified by the illusive account of pre-war Clark. Weird n'est pas?

and it's enablers constantly carp about the fact that we (USA) weren’t the only country to believe that Iraq possessed CBN weapons right up to the day of the invasion? Yet they never point out that all of these other players were working from the same playbook that we were and apparently still are. Our filtered intelligence. Do these dolts think it's 1957 or something? Do they really think they can just spew misinformation and not expect the public to find them out, and quickly. The average poster on this board has at least the same intelligence gathering capability as many intel. agencies of old.

Jay

It's not stupidity, or outright ill-will. It was--yes, it was--a confusing time with a lot of intimidation in the air. And lots of folks STILL didn't realize how rotten the administration was.

I also wonder if a lot of pols with security clearances to hear "top secret" stuff aren't just dazzled by the fact that they have access to the intel the rest of us don't. And they aren't skeptical enough of the intel. Not everyone, maybe not many of them all the time--but too many Dems are (or were) overawed by their own "insider" status. Too willing to believe that it gives them an edge over, for example, the millions in the streets of the world.

and until people here are willing to face up to the truth of these people we cannot have any rational discourse.........a D besides someone's name doesn't mean anything unless they represent us....... Warmongers don't represent me.......I'd rather see a distinct and noticable gas shortage that continues until we all suffer....... than have us bomb the hell out of some country, dropping toxins that will remain for MILLIONS of years to grab their oil.

Well that's just me.....

I want a representative who represents me.

I hope for a better world!

We didn't have the internet then, and there was just as much lying then as with this war. But we didn't figure that out until years later. There are people out there who simply are living back in 1990, who don't have any notion that something like this place, DU, exists. This place and others like it are wonderful because of the speed with which we can become informed.

(hey, pasadenaboy, I'm an altadenageezer ~wave~)

prevail.

iraq has been under constant surveillance since the end of GWI-- including 24 hour a day flyovers, and sanctions that decimated the country. satellites that can read a dollar bill's serial number stationed overhead. UN inspectors (until 1998) and intelligence services everwhere (french and german and israeli, if not ours)

saddam couldn't order a pizza delivered without us knowing about it, yet we were expected to believe that he was busy making and storing all these dreadful weapons. nobody ever bothered to explain how this was logically possible.

No way, jose.

This crisis has broought many Senators and Congressmen/women out to the microphones. I am amazed at how stupid some of these folks are. Where does John Warner think he is ? Does he have any idea of the issues? Him and others are just incredible to watch.

believe that Senators, Kerry, Edwards, Fienstein, Biden, etc... bought into the line of crap that was being fed to them.

I dont think anyone believed that. I think its just Republican hawks who will find any excuse to go to war, and Democrats who felts political pressure to agree with any foreign policy Bush had post-9/11. If there had been a Democrat in the white house i dont think there would have been an Irag war, or a 9/11 for that matter.

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

with campaign contributions to pay attention and actually do their job.

~

Unlike the rest of us that are the us in "Us" against " Them "

These liars & thieves do not represent americans they represent

" The People " at the very top, period. There is little to fear from

terrorists just as there was little to fear from communists it is

merely the latest talisman that the ruling class pulls out anytime

they want to silence the masses & convince them to fork over more

dollars.

That's the problem with OUR media and the strength of the BBC...

OUR media must submit to corporate sponsors. If they don't like content they will PULL the plug. Thus, the news, is FORCED into political correctedness due to a constant overlaying threat that this broadcast could be cut overnight.

(Bill Maher Anyone? Politically incorrect? And that wasn't even a BAD statement he made!!!)

Now the BBC is independently funded by a TV tax which is brilliant. The BBC is afraid of NO ONE since it answers to NO ONE. This is why the internet is so powerful. It's the american version of the BBC. We have nothing to lose and therefore talk without restraint.

It's a sad reality when you finally realize how limited our media's freedom of speech really is.

Not imminent threat. Bush's case for war was hyping imminent threat, after the vote and after it was clear the UN wasn't going along. When that became clear, as early as January and possibly earlier, many Democrats criticized Bush and his war plan. And what's really wild is that Hillary still runs the highest among Democrats and she was as strong on this war as Lieberman. People are completely misconstruing the sequence of events to spin for their own candidates.

The vote gave Bush* a blank check to go to war. This whole notion of "disarmament" is cute and convenient spin provided by BushCo* to cover the rears of Dems to get their vote.

This war was planned by BushCo* in 1998. They decided to proceed on September 12, 2001, the rest is just politics.

Unfortunately for those who voted for the IWR, the butt cover was of low quality and not well maintained.

Anyone capable of reading who actually cared knew Saddam was contained, not a threat, and an enemy of islamic fundamentalists. The terrorists like al-queda who, by the way, had called for his death and nearly succeeded once or twice.

It focuses specifically on Iraq weapons and enforcing UN resolutions OR protecting U.S. security, if necessary.

Containment was not a permanent option if creating a workable relationship with other Middle East countries was ever going to happen. The sanctions did create anger in the ME. It had to be dealt with sooner or later, it's just tragic that the Bushies have no respect for international diplomacy and dealt with this situation so horribly.

By the way, why do people support containing Saddam if he was no threat anyway?

Because it's a viable tool of diplomacy. Because it's cheaper - a LOT cheaper. Because fewer of our troops die or get maimed. Because (obviously in hindsight) the inspection regime actually worked (too bad the Iraqi fools didn't keep very good records). Because it was the closest policy to world/UN consensus. Because it sure beats killing.

How many reasons do you need?

Fully two-thirds of the American people were against the impeachment of Bill Clinton, yet the House of Representatives forged ahead. Remember their little parade into the Senate chamber? They went ahead knowing full well that their case was DOA in the Senate.

And the only answer I can come up with as to why these elected representatives pressed on with Impeachment? Or why they supported Iraq Nam in spite of what they MUST have known was fabricated evidence?

They are for sale to the highest bidder.

:freak:
dbt

There is only one thing that will turn this country around and put gov't back in the hands of the people:

Full federal funding of all elections.

To send our representatives out to solicit campaign contributions is really sending them out to solicit bribes. We must take the profit motive out of politics. Just think of all the decisions made by gov't and imagine the changes that would be made if politician knew that taking money from anyone, indiviual or corporation would land him in federal prison for five years. They'd pay far more attention to the needs of their constituents.

"Full federal funding of all elections" has been my mantra in discussing politics with friends/family for some time. My friends/family are all over the place politically, but they do see the point of getting corporate money out of elections. Until we are successful in removing the "profit motive" all our efforts is like the Red Queen in "Alice" -- running as fast as we can just to stay in one place.

MAKE NO MISTAKE - THEY KNEW THERE WAS NO THREAT - THEY ARE A BUNCH OF F***ING LIARS.

Chirs Hedges writes about the myth of war and the effective of nationalism in his book. Part of the answer to the thread's question, might be found there:

Archeology, folklore, and search for what is defined as authenticity are the tools used by nationalists to assail others and promote themselves. They dress it up as history but it is myth. Real historical inquiry, in the process, is corrupted assaulted, and often destroyed. Facts become as interchangeable as opinions. Those facts that are inconvenient are discarded or denied. The obvious inconsistencies are ignored by those intoxicated by a newly found sense of national pride and the exciting prospect of war. (47)

There is much more here. Hedges observes that after the lies become to heavy to sustain themselves and thus, collapse, those who held those false beliefs, just walk away refusing to hold the liars responsible. As for those who opposed the liars; they are still held in contempt. What we are wittnessing goes with the territory of nationalism and war.

There is too much truth in Hedges' book to reproduce in one DU text box, but I recommend the book to anyone searching for an understanding of what we are enduring.