Unbelievable 60 minutes with Kerry/Edwards on Iraq

[still_one]

I saw John Kerry and John Edwards on 60 minutes. Their excuse was they were given wrong information. BULL!!!

It was "WRONG" to go into Iraq.

Remember Afganistan, al queada, Oshma bin Laden, Mullough Omar(sic)?

Saying that you received bad information is not enough. It was a mistake, and it should be admitted as such.

Greg Thielmann, Richard Clarke, and a cast of other government officials knew it was a mistake. I knew it was a mistake. Now both Afganistan, Iraq, and the entire middle east are a mess because we didn't focus in Afganistan where we should have.

[David Dunham]

1. Get real. The key issue now is how Bush is mishandling Iraq.

How people voted 2 years ago is not going to decide this election.

[wyethwire]

2. amen

[still_one]

5. No, but not recognizing a mistake IS!

I know independents whose main issue is the war in Iraq, and if Kerry would have done the same thing that bush did, that is a mistake!

[Guaranteed]

6. The war is the main issue for nearly everyone,

as it should be.

[merh]

You must not have been paying attention....

Kerry and Edwards both said that if Kerry was president he would never have put us at war with Iraq, he would have takent the time to get the answers about WMDs and to use all diplomatic methods available before he would have sent troops in.

People, John Kerry was an anti-war activist long before most of us ever thought of politics as anything more than a subject to study in school.

He is trying to win the election to help restore our country and yes, maybe he has to walk a tight-rope that you swear if you were him, you would jump over. He answered the question, you all just want to hear the answer you would give.

[TeacherCreature]

45. He wouldn't have done it? He did do it.

He is just as responsible for Iraq as anyone else. If he would have taken time then he should not have voted for the IWR.

[merh]

63. No he is not, the WH and their faulty intelligence and lies are

responsible. The fact that Edwards and Kerry voted for House Joint Resolution 114 in October of 2003 clearly reflects that they were duped just as the rest of the nation was duped. The legislation that approved the military action in Iraq was HJ Res 114 and it clearly sets forth that Iraq had WMD, biological weapons and was involved in the terrorist acts of 9/11. All of these things we know are not true and were lies of * and his admin.

HJ Res 114 states:

HJ Res 114
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of United States citizens;

Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11,2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;

Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the cur-rent Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself; ...

http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/H.J.Res.114_RDS.pdf.
========================

Kerry and Edwards properly answered the question posed by 60 minutes. If they knew then what they know now, they would not have voted for the legislation.

WH duped us all, even Congress.

[The Crazy Canadian]

3. I agree with you totally.

This was all neocon plot. The antiwar Left needs to pound the idea that the war in Iraq has nothing to do with the war on "terrorism".

[Guaranteed]

4. I do think they're playing it too cautious with that answer.

Their answer should be given in terms of the war on terror. The way Richard Clarke put it in the best way possible: By invading Iraq, the Bush administration has greatly undermined the war on terror. Therefore, the war was the wrong thing for the United States to do.

That is an extremely strong position to take, and it should be theirs.

[still_one]

7. Tell me what you think about this link?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/14/60II/main577975.shtml

Greg Thielmann was Powell's main advisor, and told him Iraq was not an immenient threat...

[patricia92243]

10. I hope some of their staff read DU. There are some great ideas here and t

this is one of them!

[still_one]

12. The best way to do it is to leave comment

at http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/contact.php

Incidently, I will vote for Kerry/Edwards no matter what, but I do think they had better get this issue straight...

[Upfront]

21. Agree

Howard Dean said it was wrong, I knew it was wrong, or at least thought they were not telling us the truth. Kerry had better get right on this one, and so should Edwards.

[Guaranteed]

22. Yep, they're going to keep getting hit with this, and

they need an answer.

[sampsonblk]

44. Yeah, Freeps are on it already

The Freepers posted some comments by Edwards on hardball and other shows prior to the invasion. Edwards used some pretty strong language in favor of the invasion, including "imminent threat," which even Bush didn't (directly) say.

Kerry and Edwards are going to have to get out there in front of this issue right away - before they end up starring in Bush commercials.

[TeacherCreature]

46. This is why they were IMO the worst candidates

It is very frustrating to watch my parties candidates have to try and figure out how to slither through the cracks on this issue.

[prodigal_green]

48. it was a trap to see if Kerry would flip-flop

At least that is how it would have been played if he had said yes, it was a mistake.

[Union Thug]

8. Agreed...

There were many of us that were debunking the bullshit 'evidence' as quickly as the Bush tyrants could vomit it up. Why the hell couldn't our Democratic leaders do the simple research necessary, the same research that punk-ass tech writers like me were able to do in our spare time, to expose King Chimp and his monkey minions for the lying excrement that they are.

They do need to come out boldy and say it was WRONG.

[Disturbed]

15. Iraq Invasion was not only a mistake.

It was illegal and BushCo are War Criminals.

In my view Kerry and Edwards are avoiding the truth. Why?

[TeacherCreature]

47. because they voted in support of the war

what can they do now but try to claim they were misled.

[Lestatdelc]

18. Right or wrong

They saw the political bloodbath of the 02 mid-terms.

When Max Cleland can get run-over on his being "unpatriotic" and "not serious about our nation's security"... this to smear a triple-amputee Vietnam combat vet.. rightly or wrongly the Dems as a whole went into the political fetal position to stay alive politically.

I know that we who knew this was bullshit don't like that ugly political reality, but there it is.

[latebloomer]

9. "We didn't know"

is a BULLSHIT excuse!!

TEN MILLION PEOPLE all over the world took to the streets to try to prevent this war. WE knew-- why didn't they???

[hang a left]

14. They all knew. A few Senators actually read the entire report not just

the NIE. But most didn't want to waste their time walking across Capital Hill to read the assessment.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=artic ...

Congressional Oversight of Intelligence Criticized
Committee Members, Others Cite Lack of Attention to Reports on Iraqi Arms, Al Qaeda Threat
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, April 27, 2004; Page A01

In the fall of 2002, as Congress debated waging war in Iraq, copies of a 92-page assessment of Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction sat in two vaults on Capitol Hill, each protected by armed security guards and available to any member who showed up in person, without staff.

But only a few ever did. No more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page National Intelligence Estimate executive summary, according to several congressional aides responsible for safeguarding the classified material.

The lack of congressional attention to the nitty-gritty details of Iraq's weapons programs is symptomatic of Congress's approach to a range of intelligence matters, according to current and former intelligence committee members and a broad swath of intelligence experts.

(snip)

[annagull]

11. Well, they got to do better than the answers they just gave

They may not want it to be a black and white issue, but Bushler and the RNC and the bushlovin' media will make damn sure it is. All they have to say is 'knowing what we know now, we should have never trusted this administration with that vote. I will work with the world community to get us out of Iraq."

[shockingelk]

72. Kerry's answer: Oct 9, 2002: even better today!

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html


The revised White House text, which we will vote on, limits the grant of authority to the President to the use of force only with respect to Iraq. It does not empower him to use force throughout the Persian Gulf region. It authorizes the President to use Armed Forces to defend the ``national security'' of the United States--a power most of us believe he already has under the Constitution as Commander in Chief. And it empowers him to enforce all ``relevant'' Security Council resolutions related to Iraq. None of those resolutions or, for that matter, any of the other Security Council resolutions demanding Iraqi compliance with its international obligations, calls for a regime change.

"In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days--to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough and immediate inspection requirements, and to act with our allies at our side if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force. If he fails to do so, I will be among the first to speak out."

- John Kerry
Statement on Senate Floor
October 9, 2002

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

13. I agree, that was unbelievable. Unbelievably bad.

An otherwise slam-dunk interview was marred by the way they handled that question. Stahl gave them an opportunity to respond to a GOP ad and the charges that Kerry waffles, and they blew it.

A real jarring moment was when Edwards jumped in, held Kerry back a bit, and said "I'll handle this"....???

This is a key national issue and they need to be very clear on this. Answers like tonight aint going to hack it with undecided voters, and just gives more ammo to the GOP.

[newsguyatl]

16. i see both sides to this

i agree that it was a total pussy answer, and made them both look like political cowards to those of us who know the TRUTH. we know it was a mistake, and THEY know it was.

but on the other hand, as another poster said in another thread, we have soldiers on the ground there (killers they may be) and to say it's a "mistake" would give all kinds of ammunition to the rightwing. we don't need that right now.


so yes, in a perfect world, we could have REAL political heroes who always spoke the truth -- but we don't live in that world and probably won't for a while, so kerry and edwards gave a very safe answer...


it's kind of like lincoln -- before he was elected president he never spoke out against slavery... not because he was for it, but because he knew he couldn't get elected in that time if he were to speak out against it.

but look what happened just a few years later.

[annagull]

23. very thoughtful post, newsguyatl

I agree with you, and I think they should put the onus back on Bush with the trust factor.i.e "We trusted our President to tell the truth to us and the world, and he failed to do so, that was a mistake." But maybe yielding any ground to the word "mistake" is just how you said.

[emulatorloo]

33. thoughtful post - the question is a right wing trap, it needs a cautious

answer.

Kerry/Edwards are hammering every day on Bush admin truthfulness and credibility. They will get the message across.

However, they are right to be cautious with this one though - The right wing is waiting for any answer that they can twist into "unpatriotic" "flip-flop" "rolls over for the terrorists" "weak on defence" whatever. . .

[BleedingHeartPatriot]

34. It was the word "needlessly" that skewed the question...

Kerry and Edwards were asked if troops were sent needlessly or if the war was needless (not sure of exact wording). Unlike GWB, these two are extremely sensitive to the military men and women in Iraq, and will not call anything that involves these troops "needless". The way this administration invoked and managed the war is wrong, wrong, wrong and K/E are clear about it. But you will never see them call the action "needless", because that instantly trivializes the troops. They were given a lose/lose question, and did the best they could. I appreciate their sensitivity to the the brave souls in Iraq, and the families who support them. MKj

[Kanary]

68. That "safe answer" isn't going to get votes from the middle

Just a small example..... middle America is right now walking out of F911 in droves, with their eyes newly opened, and wanting STRAIGHT answers. They've just been smacked upside the head with the realization that they were lied to, and now they want to know that there is someone they can TRUST to be clear and straight with them. They're in no mood for code answers and zigzag defenses.

Your statement about Lincoln is powerful and thought-provoking. However, there's one flaw in that analogy..... today the war is news all over the country, and people are starting to understand what really happened. They aren't going to be seduced, as Lincoln voters may have been, by by-passing the issue. They want to hear that we're getting out of there, and an honest administration they can trust will succeed the mess in the Blight House.

Otherwise, they'll just do what so many already do in the USA: they don't vote because they consider ALL politicians crooked.

If Kerry and Edwards cook their own goose over this, it will compound the tragedy.

Kanary

[pinto]

17. they were lied to. have you ever made a bad decision based on a lie?

I have. Yeah, I never sent troops into combat, but you can see my point. They made a decision as federal representatives based on lies given to them from the administration. You want to blame someone, blame the White House folks. And the Feith/Cheney/Wolfowitz cabal.

I am for international accords that would disavow the use of armed conflict. And, in an absurd corollary, I feel we could have bought our way out of this conflict if the missile guys weren't at the helm of our foreign policy.

Thanks for you post.

[latebloomer]

sorry, I don't buy it

The information was out there. I had access to it, you had access to it, my 80-year-old mother had access to it. They BELIEVED the Cheney/Wolfowitz cabal? Puh-leaze. . .

[pinto]

38. I hear you. I didn't buy it. You didn't buy it. But they did. What do we

do now? that we've "bought it"?

[still_one]

24. This is how he should have answered it

In fact this is how he did answer it about a year ago:

“This was the hardest vote I have ever had to cast in my entire career,” Kerry said. “I voted for the resolution to get the inspectors in there, period. Remember, for seven and a half years we were destroying weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. In fact, we found more stuff there than we thought we would. After that came those four years when there was no intelligence available about what was happening over there. I believed we needed to get the weapons inspectors back in. I believed Bush needed this resolution in order to get the U.N. to put the inspectors back in there. The only way to get the inspectors back in was to present Bush with the ability to threaten force legitimately. That’s what I voted for.”

“The way Powell, Eagleberger, Scowcroft, and the others were talking at the time,” continued Kerry, “I felt confident that Bush would work with the international community. I took the President at his word. We were told that any course would lead through the United Nations, and that war would be an absolute last resort. Many people I am close with, both Democrats and Republicans, who are also close to Bush told me unequivocally that no decisions had been made about the course of action. Bush hadn’t yet been hijacked by Wolfowitz, Perle, Cheney and that whole crew. Did I think Bush was going to charge unilaterally into war? No. Did I think he would make such an incredible mess of the situation? No. Am I angry about it? You’re God damned right I am. I chose to believe the President of the United States. That was a terrible mistake.”

[Wind Dancer]

26. Great post, still_one!

Unfortunately, I was too busy posting and missed the interview!

I think Kerry and Edwards could effectively use this without fear of attacks from the neocons. Why do you think they are answering "safe" and not being more honest like the above quote. Do you think they have been advised to not be this straightforward?

This is such an important issue for all of us who are anti-war and want the troops returned home immediately. Are they being safe for fear of a slaughter of attacks from the neocons lashing back that Kerry and Edwards signed on for the war?

[GingerSnaps]

19. Everyone was lied to by the Re-thugs & Bush needs to be called on it

:kick:

[AP]

28. I'm blaming Bush long before I blame any dem for Iraq war, and I'm blaming

every Republican senator before I blame any Democratic senator.

[GingerSnaps]

20. Everyone was lied to by the Re-thugs & Bush needs to be called on it

:kick:

[Gloria]

25. This is probably why we won't be seeing much of Clark....or

Bob Graham. Bob Graham knew and voted no. Clark knew. Clark knows what's coming down the road next.

But the party didn't want to know. This is a disgrace.

That's why I'm back to independent.

[AP]

29. Didn't Graham vote no because he thought the resolution didn't go

far enough?

I read that here, so it's total hearsay. I have no idea if it's true.

[AP]

27. Anybody who thinks Dems are ever going to win being anti-war needs

to have a think about how politics work.

During vietname we elected a Republican president twice.

It's like being anti-gun. No Dem is going to win an election being anti-gun. You can be pro-gun safety, but not anti-gun.

Anyone who thinks Kerry-Edwards would have gotten us into this war, or will be imperialists also needs to have a think about how politics work.

I relly don't understand people who don't realize these candidates come to us on a silver platter and we can make sure they're elected by not playing into the wedge issues Republicans wants us to play into, with their IWR votes being one of those big issues.

[Guaranteed]

30. The IWR vote is an issue some people actually care about.

It's not a "wedge issue."

[AP]

61. I care so much about the war and imperialism, I want the Dems to win.

Which is why I don't want to repeat '68 and '72.

There's too much at stake to play stupid.

[Guaranteed]

67. I want the Dems to win, too. And I want them

to start representing us, and stop being cowards.

It really shouldn't be that difficult.

[AP]

69. They're representing me by running a winnable campaign. They don't

represent me by running an unwinnable campaign and never being in office.

I think it takes courage to run and win and actually lead.

It's actually kind of cowardly to not do what you need to do to win. You talk the big talk, but you know that you're never going to have to step up the plate and take swings at the ball because you're always going to lose.

That's why I find some of Nader's BS so offensive. He can talk the big talk, but he'll never be president and he'll never have to do what leaders do, so he can talk big. There's a kind of cowardice in that -- in not confronting the realities of what it takes to get elected in America.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

31. This is not about "us"

This is about undecided, mostly unpolitical voters.

Their answers (or non answers) tonight will not cause me to not vote for them. But they need to be alot more forethright on this issue or it will turn off voters as they will be playing into the "just another lying weasle-word politician" angle the GOP is pushing, which is also sort of popular wisdom or prejudice about politicians.

The GOP knows what they are going to say. They are clear and decisive on this war issue. And this will be a contrast between them and Kerry.

If Kerry needs to be pro-war, he needs to just say so, and be pro-war. He can atttack Bush on the execution of the war, and so forth.

[KoKo]

42. Undecideds have more pull than registered ACTIVLY Participating Dems?

Hello...really..we don't matter? :eyes:

[AP]

62. If you're undecided today b/w Kerry and Bush, you're not voting on war

obviously.

[TeacherCreature]

49. If the democrats can't be anti war even in a case like this stinking pile

of poop war, then who cares if we can win?

[AP]

60. No. You should think, "if the Democrats couldn't win in 68 and 72 being

anti war, then how do we expect them to be anti war now?"

[NNN0LHI]

32. Forget it. Ain't happening. Weak on defense and all that crap

How many times we got to go through this? Starting to remind me of Groundhog Day around here. Don't you guys ever give it a rest? Only DK suggested anything close to what you are suggesting and he supports Kerry/Edwards because he knows they won't fuck the shit up. Sheesh.

Don

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

35. No. You miss the point.

The point is that Kerry & Edwards failed to clearly articulate a position on a key national issue and did not sucessfully address a GOP attack ad when given the opportunity to.

I really dont care what position they take...pro or anti-war. They need to take a clear position and stick with it, and articulate that position so as to critique Bush.

[NNN0LHI]

37. How does one take a clear position on something that changes every day?

Can't be done. Coherently anyway.

Don

[saracat]

36. Oh! Puleeze!

give it a rest.I protested both this war and the Vietnam.And I didn't like Kerry's vote but let's get the man elected first.This is exactly why Kerry is more "electable" than Dean. This issue has to be (Choke) finessed ,otherwise we'll lose the moderates.Ordinarily I wouldn't give a damn, but this election is too important.We won't win without them.There just aren't enough people on the left.

[TeacherCreature]

52. meet the new boss

same as the old boss.

Sorry but killing thousands of people and then going "well I would have done it differently" is lame.
I disagree that Dean was not electable. Though the democratic party and the threatened media interests certainly worked overtime convincing people that was the case.

[saracat]

54. Sorry .

But no one voted for him and that's the definition of electability.Wether Kerry sounds lame or not won't bring back the dead, but his election could prevent this from happening again.

[lostnfound]

73. Maybe the groundrules get passed down at Bilderberg..?

:shrug:

No peaking behind the curtain. But we don't want the masses thinking they can take control.

I recall a Financial Times photo of Kerry peaking up from behind a velvet curtain..when he first took the lead.

[lostnfound]

74. Losing the "moderates"? More like losing the "Man" -- the networks,

the corporate head honchos who will ensure that they are unelectable by playing an embarrassing moment 1500 times a day until the sheep change.

Scr-- it. I spent 3 hours yesterday calling to register voters, and hosting a party; but I'm feeling damn glad that the money I've wasted on this campaign has gone to Howard Dean and Dennis Kucinich.

Sorry kids, it was the best we could elect.
http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2004/04/12/falluja_graves,0.jpg

[saracat]

75. Isn't it ironic?

It isn't the repugs we have to fear but ourselves.Obviously,we might shoot ourselves in the foot yet!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. Still playing the "I wuz fooled." tune?

The whole world was given "wrong information" and the vast majority of the world saw it for what it was..bald faced lies and manipulations to cover an illegal invasion of a sovereign country.

Pretty lame. No, extremely lame.

[Swamp Rat]

40. It was a good interview and they both did just fine.

Geaux Kerry and Edwards!!!

[sampsonblk]

41. Bush has a strong position, Kerry should too

Bush hasn't blinked once when it came to this illegal invasion. It was both immoral and stupid, but Bush sticks to his guns despite public sentiment and mounting evidence against him.

If Bush can maintain such a strong position despite massive evidence to the contrary, why can't John Kerry openly state the view that is supported by the facts. What is the risk?

Ever wonder why the polls show people trust Bush more, and think he has superior character and leadership...?

[NNN0LHI]

57. Bush has a strong position on Iraq?!?!?!?! Who you think you are kidding?

One day Muqtada al-Sadr is a terrorist who is going to be arrested or killed forthwith. The next day he can run for president of Iraq. Bush fires the Iraqi army and now he is rehiring them all. Yea, sure. Strong position on Iraq. Get out man. You make me laugh.

Don

[sampsonblk]

71. You misunderstood

I didn't say he was right, I am saying he states a strong position: we will not tire, etc. He keeps saying we are 100% right. Only about 35-40% agree with him, but a lot of people appreciate the fact that he has taken a strong position. They feel he is a strong leader.

I agree with Pres Clinton: in this current environment, its wiser to be strong and wrong than weak and right. We are right, but we have to be strong about it as well. If we continue to take weak positions, or no positions at all (as some have advocated) we are assured of losing a large bloc of votes.

[Inland]

43. Well, no, that wasn't their "excuse"..

The debacle that is Iraq was the product of a dozen bad decisions. If Bush has allowed inspections, would there have been an invasion indicated? If we had bothered with international support, would an invasion have been avoided? If we had worked to get better intel, would we have known better? And that's just the choices BEFORE the occupation. There were a dozen or more tipping points where we could have worked for a different outcome, but didn't--because George W. Bush was in charge. A good president MAKES options. Bush didn't want options. He wanted in. And he wanted it on the cheap, and had no planning.

In my mind the same reason Kerry can't answer the question with a straight up or down shows why he can be president. He can't say which of the avenues that Bush never tried, or tried half assed, would have kept us out. Its an alternative universe scenario. But I tell you this--Kerry would have approached it honestly, not just as a exercise to pretend while he did whatever he wanted. Bush didn't just have a bad policy, he had a lie to foist on us. We'll never know because BUsh didn't try to give us less than war. We just have to try a good man who will work for good decisions. Kerry is that guy.

[union_maid]

50. I don't think he'll ever say it.

He knows it and he never, ever would have done it if he were in office at the time. He'll never say it because people have died, including 1,000 coalition troops AND just pulling out and walking away is probably not an option and more are going to die. He'll never say they died for nothing, especially when he's not going to be able to take us right out of it. I don't blame him. I have every faith that he'll handle what he inherits as well as anyone ever could. He'll give it his best shot to leave Iraq better off than it was before the war, firstly because it is a serious security risk now and to give it all some meaning.

[Chili]

51. doesn't anyone remember what it was like back then?

It was a political minefield, a nightmare, for Democrats. Here was this swaggering non-elected president flashing his "mandate" to go to war against the evil Saddam Hussein who sent Al Qaida to kill us all. WMDs! WMDs! Chemical weapons! Biological weapons! Whether the politicans bought all that bunk is beside the point - the PEOPLE bought it. Not you or me, but the vast majority of people believed it, they believed Powell, they believed what THEIR president told them. It was the most politically charged and politically dangerous atmosphere I can remember. And for Democrats, had they stuck to their guns and refused to back the war - a vote they would've lost, btw, - what would the headlines in the Republican-controlled media have been? "Democrats Give Saddam a Free Pass for 9/11." "Blood of Thousands on the Hands of the Democrats." Do you doubt it? Doesn't matter that many many people didn't believe the link between Al Qaida and Iraq, to this day, 40% of the morons out there still believe it! Still! And remember the shrieks of UNPATRIOTIC! UNPATRIOTIC! If you hate America, LEAVE! I was on another message board where the blood flowed daily; we were hammered every day, and every day, our patriotism and integrity was attacked viciously with the stupidest arguing points in the history of debate, but it didn't matter. The media was echoing the same arguments. It was trench warfare for Democrats, and the only thing they could do to survive it was duck down and pray. Because what if they got it wrong? What if there was a connection, something that was missed, or worse, something that could be manufactured, and WMDs had been found? Kiss the Democrats goodby for a generation. It's easy to second-guess them now. The fact is they survived it long enough to have the horrible lies and the real motives exposed, and they didn't even have to hunt for it, they didn't even have to get their hands dirty, it came to them on a silver platter from Clarke, and O'Neill, and Wilson and once they had that weapon, they used it. Let's just get these criminals out of the White House.

[union_maid]

53. You're right and there was one more thing...

The public wanted the president empowered to take quick action. The country wanted to trust this president and this administration, including many who didn't vote for him and many who are now disillusioned and won't be voting for him again.

The vote was way before the administration demonstrated a total lack of interest in coalitions, letting the inspectors do their jobs or the truth of the matter. All of that became clearer as the war drew nearer, but the vote was a done deal. I've never blamed any of them for their votes. I was bothered by Edwards' enthusiasm for the war, but I still don't think that any of them, even Lieberman, would have fucked everything up like this. Certainly Kerry wouldn't have.

[Chili]

66. yep

...it was such a terrible time, hard being a Democrat then - hard to be heard. We were almost screamed out of existence. I wanted troops in Afghanistan myself... not the bombing, but just get bin Laden. Or better yet, send in special forces, just get him, destroy Al Qaida. I thought that was the goal, it should've been the only goal. I was willing to give at least that a chance. And look what we got.

[NNN0LHI]

56. Some have short memories. Me too sometimes

But you got it right. Using no paragraphs or nothing. Welcome to DU Chili. I like reading sensible stuff like you write.

Don

[Chili]

64. LOL

...thank you Don! Very glad I found you guys. My friends sigh deeply when they see my big paragraphs incoming...! :D

[Guaranteed]

58. I remember exactly the way things were.

I remember that we all knew what Bush was doing, and that some had the nerve to stand up to him, and some didn't.

[Old and In the Way]

59. I've been making the exact same point.

I was against the war, bt defended Kerry and all the Democrats who voted for IWR. Why? Because I was convinced that this was a very elaborate and evil trap being laid by the juanta. I am convinced that if the Democrats had voted their natural inclination and against IWR, we'd have had another "event"....bringing martial law, evidence of AQ/Iraq link that Bush uses to get his unilateral war, and the media takes out the Democrats in the national debate by labeling us "The Party of Terrrist Appeasers".....probably takes care of 2004, too.

Paranoid? We still haven't found the terrorists that sent Anthrax to Daschle and Leahy.

[faithnotgreed]

70. so true. welcome chili!

[HarveyBriggs]

55. GMAFB

People like you.

Your why people have a hard time becoming a Democrat.

I SUPPORT Kerry/Edwards.

You, on the other hand are disgusting. I bet O'Reilly, Limbaugh and Rove are salivating over your remarks right now.

Harvey Briggs

[Zen]

65. War, what war?

lol