Randi Rhodes: Dems right for voting for war

[dennis4868]

Randi Rhodes just said that the dems were right to vote for the war because even she would have voted for the war if she read and believed the intelligence in the NIE available to all of congress.....Randi mentioned the unmanned aerial vehicles that the intelligence said Iraq had....

AGAIN, ANOTHER DEMOCRAT NOT KNOWING WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. The NIE never said that Saddam had unmanned aerial vehices....at the most, the NIE states, that Saddam was trying to create them. Even the intelligence branch for the Air Force, which knows more about this issue than any other agency, said that Saddam had NO UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES!

Randi is kissing up to her Democratic guests saying I dont blame you for voting for the war. I do blame them. Dems should have questioned why the October 2002 NIE changed so drasticallly in terms of the Iraqi threat changed so much in less than a year. What about all the dissenters in the NIE which was extremely unusual for an NIE? There are so many other questions the Dems should have asked and they did not...they are spineless assholes!

What I dont get is that there is so much info/facts that can prove the WH lied to us about the Iraqi threat. For example, the WH told us many things about the Iraqi threat that was not in any NIE or supported by any intelligence report. So why when a Dem goes on TV and a media whore says that Bush did not lie, the Dems just sit back and agree...again, they are spineless assholes!

[never_get_over_it]

1. Randi thinks she know everything about everything

and although she is pretty darn smart she doesn't know everything - her favorite Senator Bob Graham was smart enough to vote against it....good for him

[freetobegay]

2. There is a reason Bob Graham voted against it

Same reason he was Governor of Florida for all those years. He's one smart man!

[UdoKier]

3. I like Randi, but...

I think she's sometimes more loyal to party than to principle. I've heard her do that before. I guess it's her way of supporting the candidate - seeing the big picture, etc. A lot of us are toning down our feelings on this a bit on this for the sake of the candidate. It IS that important, so I'll giver her some slack on this one.

[dennis4868]

6. I think she...

gets starstruck when she talks to members of congress and does not act like she does with her callers...also, she thinks she knows it all, and doesn't. She should do her homework more and read up about exactly what the NIE said and did not say.

She is not the only one, all Dems who go on these cable TV political shows make us Dems look real bad...they may say Bush lied about WMD and a Saddam/911/al Qaeda connection (or are to scared to do it) and then dont have the facts to back it up. There are plenty of fcats out there to prove the WH was talking out of their ass before the war regarding the threat from Saddam.

[sangh0]

4. Graham thought we should have attack Syria and Iran

IMO, it's incredibly unwise for anti-war activists to use Graham to support an anti-war position. Graham is a hawk

[dennis4868]

12. I will miss...Senator Graham....

he was a great senator!

[rucky]

5. How did I know it was bogus, then?

seriously, my BS detector was up from day 1.

BUT, those who have a stake in the security of our nation had the question in their minds (if they were responsible) "This sounds ridiculous...but what if they're right?"

And what if they were right? How would that have made us look? It would've killed the party, that's what it would've done. There was a time when it was (briefly) reported thatWMDs had been found. My heart sank for a moment there because I knew my cred was shot. It was a false alarm, of course, but for that brief moment...

[info being]

8. Yes, but what if they were wrong?

We have murdered so many innocent people. We are making the country less safe and less sound for decades to come.

They should have looked into it. I'm with you, I knew it was all BS all along.

[DjTj]

22. If they were wrong it was Bush's responsibility to find out...

...the inspectors needed more time and it is the Commander in Chief's job to be absolutely sure before risking the lives of the troops.

Congress voted with a "what if they were right" mentality, but the ultimate responsibility for being right falls no the President. If Gore were there, he would have made sure he was right before going in.

I knew it was BS too, but I blame Bush.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

28. Yes, but what if they were wrong?

Ditto... I knew it was crap from the start. This is just a cleverly disguised business deal..... that is coming apart at the seams... and will put us in more danger than these clowns could ever have imagined. Hell... maybe this is what they want... a worldwide showdown between "good" and "evil"..... pulleeeeeze.

When they are working for us... they are the greatest thing since sliced bread... but when they turn and bite the hand that helped feed them.... look out. It would go a great way in the world for our "leaders" to publicly acknowledge their involvement with these forces in Afghanistan... their involvement with breaking democratically elected govts the world round... their involvement in things that they should never have been involved in if they stand for the things they claim to.

It would go a long long way for us to own up to the reasons why so many people have less than an admirable view of some of the activities our intelligence (can I say intelligence) communities have been involved in... for example... helping cocaine get into the inner cities... imagine that. John Kerry testified during those hearings.. and you can see him in the video of this shameful period at the link....

www.guerrillanews.com/crack

[dennis4868]

9. I KNEW IT WAS BS....

because every once in awhile you hear things from other intelligence agencies that the evidence was very weak....i remember doubt coming out of the DOS, DOE, and Air Force before the war. Then in February before the war there was an article in Newsweek that quoted members of the CIA saying there is no real proof that Saddam has WMD (a memo was sent to the WH)....I can get you that article if you like to see it.

Plus, I knew that the NIE from 2000 and 2001 did not mention Saddam had nuclear weapons or a program...I got that info from the Carnegie Endownment for International Peace who have members from the Clinton WH. How could the threat from Saddam change so much in such a small amount of time.

Plus, I did not trust Bush at all after the 2000 election...

add that all up and I knew it was BULLSHIT!

[dennis4868]

11. Plus....

scott ritter was screaming his head off that there were no WMD in Iraq...

and lastly, after Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998 the military said (read the NY Times articles on this) that they just about got rid of all remaining WMD in Iraq....they were 95% sure about that according to the articles.

[never_get_over_it]

10. The answer was to give the inspectors more time

the administration made it sound like the threat was immediate and it clearly was not - why rush to war - that is what they should have voted on and pushed for - but not having the majority they couldn't. I understand what you are saying and I think that is why alot of them voted how they did - political cover.

[doctorbombeigh]

21. A lot of people knew it was wrong. America still did it. (rant)

And that's where "you broke it, you bought it" comes in, unfortunately. I think it was wrong to vote Bush the power to pursue his war. It never struck me as a serious threat, I never was afraid of Saddam, I thought it was nonsense and I was right. So were a lot of other people, much smarter than I. On some abstract level, I suppose I understand the congressional political theory, but imo they shouldn't have done it.

The fact remains that on the level of "who do you blame for this" I blame Bush&Co. More than that, I fear four more years of Bush far more than I fear four, or even eight, years of Kerry. (I'm from MA so Kerry's no mystery.)

American Democrats cannot afford to be the equivalent of political Puritans. Whatever our differences, our focus is clear - Beat Bush. We have a responsibility to make absolutely sure that he loses this election. Kerry's the ONLY candidate left who can beat him - he gets my full and enthusiastic support (and should get yours, imo).

Of course, if you are more interested in feeding your personal gripes now, rather than removing the Bush regime from office now - good luck with that. The rest of us are still busy getting rid of Bush.

Hey I know! let's hang out and whine about Democrats the second week in November, while we watch Laura pack.

[Jacobin]

7. She's an idiot covering for Kerry

over 100 congresscritters voted against the invasion.

There was evidence EVERYWHERE that smirky was lying. Former CIA heads wrote op-eds in papers warning against the invasion.

Smirky's own fucking father wrote a book describing in PRECISE DETAIL what would happen if you tried to conquer Iraq. It it ALL turned out true.

NO ONE gets a pass on this bullshit. Too many people have died and will continue to die. This invasion is a war crime and those who supported it should be tried at the Hague. It's just that simple. (yes, it is. Ask any Iraqi what they think, who they know that's been killed, and how much worse it is there since we invaded)

[Individualist]

13. Damn!

I like to listen to Randi, although I don't always agree with her opinions, and I certainly don't agree with this one. She'll probably get a lot of flak from her listeners about this.

[wiggs]

14. There was a lot more than NIE

Congress may have seen cherry picked intelligence information. But it's not like congressmen read it in a vacuum. There were briefings of congresspersons in smaller groups by the WH in which much more was hinted at. This is where the WH told congressmen that Saddam could reach the US with drones. That WMD could be released within 45 minutes. And congress was told that the WH had much more information that it couldn't talk about. This is how he got congress to approve IWR.

We know now that Saddam had no significant drone capability, but that didn't stop the WH from scaring all of us with the idea of them in 2002 and 2003. We all knew the evidence presented to us was weak, but at that point in time we couldn't have believed the depth of deception that we were really faced with.

I don't know why more isn't said about this important aspect of misinformation. I believe Rockfeller mentioned it a few times months ago. I agree that Dems are being too passive, allowing CIA to take all the heat when, in reality, the WH had a lot to do with presenting intelligence inaccurately.

[dennis4868]

15. Really good point....

regarding the intelligence meetings with congress at the WH...I forgot about that. I remember hearing from a dem a few months back that they were at the meeting and being told alot of things that were not even in the NIE that was scaring their pants off....You dont hear much about this in the media (or from Dems anymore).

WHY?

[ElkHunter]

16. In this instance...

...Randi is just flat wrong. I guess if Limbaugh and his ilk can get one right once in awhile it is permissible for one of ours to get one wrong now and then.

[Endangered Specie]

17. Randi, cmon now what ya been smoking? (can I get some)...

That dont sound like the Randi I know.

[madfloridian]

18. Send her this article from 2002.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article2319.htm

[gratuitous]

19. Is it okay to disagree with Randi and not hate her?

I have to disagree. The "intelligence," cooked to a fine consistency by the corrupt Bush administration, certainly might lead otherwise dull or uninformed people to support going to war.

HOWEVER

I don't expect my representatives in Congress to be dull or informed. I expect them to track things down, and know what's going on. I understand that they don't have time to read every bill that comes down the pike, and often they rely on a trusted colleague to tell them how to vote.

BUT WAR IS DIFFERENT

If we're going to commit our nation and its troops to a battle, then every member of Congress, Republican, Democrat, striped or plaid, has to track it down for himself or herself. There is no excuse for not requiring the best information from every source available. Some congresspersons did a creditable job (Jim McDermott of Washington leaps to mind) in trying to ascertain as well as they could what the whole story was, and they voted against the Iraq invasion.

As much as I blame the dumbasses who voted for this stupid, elective invasion and still think it was the right thing to do, the assclowns who are saying now, "Golly, it sure seemed like the right thing to do at the time," or "I wasn't really sure, but I figured better safe than sorry" deserved to have a public butt-kicking, courtesy of your old pal gratuitous.

Randi's as wrong as she can be on this one, but I still like her.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

23. it's hard to respectfully disagree

with her when she's so incapable of doing it herself

i always come back to this:

if millions worldwide could see through bush's b.s., why couldn't the dems?

was everyone in the antiwar movement an unreasonable kook?

[gratuitous]

27. Well, I can't control Randi, just me

So I'll have to go with respectful disagreement and take my chances for how other people conduct themselves. Just like I do every other day of my life.

:hi:

[muriel_volestrangler]

20. No; the Air Force said they thought the UAVs were unlikely for WMD

The NIE:

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cia/nie2002_iraq_wmd.htm

" Baghdad has exceeded UN range limits of 150 km with its ballistic missiles and is working with unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), which allow for a more lethal means to deliver biological and, less likely, chemical warfare agents.
...
Baghdad's UAVs could threaten Iraq's neighbors, U.S. forces in the Persian Gulf, and if brought close to, or into, the United States, the U.S. Homeland.

* An Iraqi UAV procurement network attempted to procure commercially available route planning software and an associated topographic database that would be able to support targeting of the United States, according to analysis of special intelligence.

* The Director, Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance, U.S. Air Force, does not agree that Iraq is developing UAVs primarily intended to be delivery platforms for chemical and biological warfare (CBW) agents. The small size of Iraq's new UAV strongly suggests a primary role of reconnaissance, although CBW delivery is an inherent capability."

The Air Force thought there were UAVs; possibly because Iraq admitted it had them, and was allowed to.

"Iraq's 1996 Full, Final, and Complete Disclosure said the drones were intended for reconnaissance and aerial targeting, not for BW delivery."
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/congress/2004_rpt/iraq-wmd-intell_chapter6-e.htm

So I think Randi did get her facts right.

[msmcghee]

24. What the NIE said makes no difference.

Bush* was able to create the impression among Americans that we faced imminent danger from Saddam Hussein. The evidence turned out to be sketchy in retrospect - but at the time most people thought Saddam must have something left over after four years of no inspections. That's what Randi means.

The reality is if Kerry had voted against the resolution and it turned out that Saddam had any of those WMD's, the polls would be Bush* 60/40 right now. The Bush* campaign would be running ads 24/7 - asking how many thousands of Americans would be dead right now if we had followed Kerry's advice and didn't attack Iraq when we did.

Not only would Kerry be out of the running right now, but the left would have been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of most Americans and we'd be looking at the next several administrations under Repuke rule. Think of that.

Instead, Kerry is 51/49 against an incumbent president in a nation where changing horses in wartime is considered a no-no by a large majority.

Kerry took the less risky path - and it paid off. His no vote would not have slowed the rush to war perceptively anyway. The American people were behind it.

We are in the process of taking back the Whitehouse. You should be thankful.

[devinsgram]

25. Here's my take on it.

Has anyone ever wondered why, if they were talking about it being such a cakewalk to get into Iraq and depose Saddam, wouldn't one think they already knew there were no weapons there and they were not going to have a difficult time because of it. And what kind of dictator who supposedly had such weapons, would not have an army so to speak of that could use them.

It really didn't take a brain surgeon to figure that one out. All Saddam was was tin horn dictator with a big mouth. And a large part of these senators and congressmen could not figure it out. That is one thing I will never understand.

[msmcghee]

26. Again, the logic is irrelevant.

*Bush was able to convince most Americans that Saddam had WMD's. That's all that matters. That reality put Kerry in a box. We are very fortunate that Kerry had the skill not to get trapped in that box.

Believe it or not - this is a democracy and the people will get their way in the end - and politicians who go against that flow will suffer - even if the people's way is monumentally stupid.