Russ Feingold, October 09, 2002
My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution, vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with very minimal justification.
I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree, post-9/11, we face, as the President said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism. We must be very patient and very vigilant, and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices.
With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations.
Yes, I agree; if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time. I agree, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. I agree, a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.
I also believe and agree, as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our people. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself--and I am skeptical that is exactly what we are dealing with here--then we could, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.
These are all areas where I agree with the administration. However, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I am not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action, but when the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives in insisting on action at this time.
- more-
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/Z?r107:S09OC2-0011:
Bush lied
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022537683
= new reply since forum marked as read
My candidate since 2003! 
I'm sorry over and over again for seeing the light after the fact.
Saying that the money should be used to bring our troops home. I've had that sticker on my car since I bought it in 2004. Initially, he was called "unpatriotic" for his opposition to the war. He's been my candidate ever since. He's been unafraid to speak out, votes for what's right rather than political expediency.
and never had to say he was wrong in this instance, unlike Edwards who was wrong on a number of fronts but had a better smile or something and would be more appealing to the mainstream and the "liberal" aspects of our party... what a waste and diversion that campaign was!!!
Sometimes the "liberal" candidates and media make us feel good, unfortunately they also divert our attention from the real issues and politicians. Now I'm going to get into trouble 
I remember reading what Kucinich said on the evening of shock and awe, basically some in our country will be celebrating but he'll be thinking of all the lives, based on lies, that will be affected and the money that will be drained from domestic issues.
He was right.
But he had clips of numerous congresspeople and what they said in the lead up to the war in 2003. And then there was Dennis (looking incredibly young 
), saying exactly what we've always thought, and what everybody knows now. I don't know whether I was more angry or proud, angry that he was attacked for his unwavering opposition to the war, or proud, because what he said then was so completely, absolutely right. 