I may have voted for the war if....

[dennis4868]

I believed the crap that Bush and Cheneney were telling me about Iraq's threat in private hearings/meetings. We all know now that is was a fraud and they were lieing to congress. I for one never belived Bush vecause I know his family history and the way he got into the white house was a crime. So I never gave Bush the benefit of the doubt. But if a President of the United States (which Bush is not) tells you that Iraq can destroy us in 45 minutes a congreessman usually belives it and will do whatever it takes to support the Prez. Thst is what happned here. The Dems supported Bush based on false evidence.

[sandnsea]

1. It wasn't just about what Bush said

It was about years of testimony and reports and the behavior of Saddam himself during the inspections process. It was about Scott Ritter saying in 1998 that Saddam would be able to reconstitute chem/bio weapons 6 months after all sanctions were lifted. It was about a pattern of behavior documented all those years. It was about many Democrats agreeing that it was time to have a real solution to the problems in Iraq and knowing that threat of military action was the only way to even begin to be able to move forward to get that solution.

Bush mangled the process and went off on his own agenda. Nobody could KNOW Bush would rush like a mad dog into war and break every single value this country has built up over 200 years. One's own views that America is always a bully can lead one to suspect it, but the truth is no Administration has behaved the way this one did with this war. He's the one who made the decisions to lie, circumvent the UN, alienate the world, and charge into Iraq without clear evidence or a clear plan. This tragedy is on Bush.

[damnraddem]

2. That's what Al Franken says in his book.

He DID believe it and DID publicly support the invasion. He apologizes for that and asks how it was that he COULD have believed Dubya.