It's Still There

[WilliamPitt]

Harry Reid’s so-called “stunt” on the Senate floor this past Tuesday – invoking Rule 21 to create a closed session, during which he demanded an investigation into how we were dragged to war in Iraq – brought the issue of the never-found weapons of mass destruction back into the daylight. It’s about damned time. This ball of thorns is three years old now, and we have come nowhere near addressing its roots.

Recall, if you will, George W. Bush’s State of the Union address from January of 2003. In that speech, he told us that Iraq was in possession of 26,000 liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent (500 tons equaling one million pounds, by the way), 30,000 munitions to deliver the stuff, mobile biological weapons labs, and uranium from Niger for use in Iraq’s advanced nuclear weapons program.

The page on the White House website detailing the existence of all this stuff is still there, by the way. None of the weapons they described in such dire tones actually exist, but that page is still sitting there in all its glory.

As of Wednesday morning, 2,032 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. 95 died in the month of September alone. More than 15,000 American soldiers have been wounded, many of these suffering permanently debilitating injuries, lost limbs and brain damage. There is no adequate accounting of the number of Iraqi civilians killed and wounded since the invasion and occupation began, but the toll easily reaches into the tens of thousands. Hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars have been spent. The occupation, which was supposed to result in a rain of flowers from a grateful Iraqi populace, has lasted 959 days, with no end in sight.

There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. There were no al Qaeda terrorists there. Hussein did not support Osama bin Laden; indeed, bin Laden has wanted Hussein dead for years, because Hussein made it his business to slaughter every Wahabbist he could get his hands on. Now, the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq are roadside bombs that kill American troops by twos and threes. Now, Iraq is a magnificent training ground for terrorists of every stripe. Now, our so-called mission of democracy appears ready to birth a Shia-dominated theocracy with robust ties to the hard-liners in Iran, with a constitution not worth the paper it is printed serving only to highlight the depth of this debacle.

How did we get here? The answer to this comes in three parts.

Of course, we got here because the Bush administration lied with its bare face hanging out about the threat posed by Iraq. Recall, if you will, these gems:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction." - Dick Cheney, Speech to VFW National Convention, 8/26/2002

"Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons. We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons -- the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have." - George W. Bush, Radio Address, 10/5/2002

"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." - George W. Bush, Cincinnati, Ohio Speech, 10/7/2002

"We know for a fact that there are weapons there." - Ari Fleischer, Press Briefing, 1/9/2003

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more." - Colin Powell, Remarks to UN Security Council, 2/5/2003

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." - George W. Bush, Address to the Nation, 3/17/2003

"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat." - Donald Rumsfeld, ABC Interview, 3/30/2003

"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them." - George W. Bush, Interview with TVP Poland, 5/30/2003

There are, literally, dozens more comments and declarations exactly like this. The best one, after that magically deranged comment from Bush claiming we actually found the stuff, came from Ari Fleischer on July 9, 2003, as he attempted to fend off questions about why no WMD had been located. “I think the burden,” said Fleischer while channeling Orwell, “is on those people who think he didn't have weapons of mass destruction to tell the world where they are.”

Right. So that’s the easy part. They lied, repeatedly and with deliberate intent. They used the fears created by September 11 against the American people to get the war they wanted, to get the payday they wanted for their friends, to make sure they had a dead-bang winner of an issue to run on in the 2002 midterms. This administration has admitted no fault, made no steps to rectify the mess they have created, and appears willing to slog on indefinitely. This is, in the end, not at all surprising. Getting them to admit fault is almost certainly impossible.

There are others in this, however, who must also admit fault and come completely clean. Bush and his folks were not alone in this.

Senator Reid’s strong stand on Tuesday cannot obscure the fact that he, along with Democratic Senators Lincoln, Boxer, Feinstein, Dodd, Lieberman, Biden, Carper, Nelson, Cleland, Miller, Bayh, Harkin, Breaux, Landrieu, Kerry, Carnahan, Baucus, Nelson, Torricelli, Clinton, Schumer, Edwards, Dorgan, Hollings, Daschle, Johnson, Cantwell, Rockefeller and Kohl all voted to support the Iraq War Resolution in October of 2002. 21 Democrats, led by Senator Byrd and joined by Independent Senator Jeffords, voted no on the IWR. The only Republican to join them in voting no was Lincoln Chafee.

Reid gave the Republican Congress a good tongue-lashing on Tuesday, one that was richly deserved. Yet the Democrats who got behind this thing in the first place have not come close to absolving themselves of their responsibility for what has taken place. “We were misled,” goes the Democratic refrain these days. “We were tricked. We were duped.”

Please.

I wrote a book in August of 2002, two full months before the Iraq War Resolution vote, called “War on Iraq.” The book stated unequivocally that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no ties to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda or 9/11, and thus no reason to go to war there. This book was subsequently translated into twelve languages and read all over the world. A copy was delivered to each and every member of the Senate.

If I knew this – me, wee little me – then how is it possible that all these Senators allowed themselves to be “tricked”? The answer to this is political ugliness of the purest ray serene: they voted to approve the war because the midterms were around the corner, because a Presidential election was coming, because a bunch of these Senators wanted to run for that office, because voting to approve the war was the most politically expedient option. Simply, they voted to protect their jobs and their positions and their aspirations, and assisted Bush in throwing thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to the wolves.

Reid’s actions on Tuesday, strong as they were, are not sufficient. The Democrats who lined up behind this invasion must apologize to the country and to the world for their cowardice and their grievous errors of judgment. They weren’t duped. They went along for the ride. If they are going to fix the mess, the first step they must take is to admit their own complicity. Until they do, the stain of their failure will remain.

The third player in this tragedy is the mainstream news media, led by the august New York Times. On Wednesday, the Times editors coughed up a moralistic scolding of the Bush administration regarding the WMD issue titled “Remember that Mushroom Cloud?” In it, the editors wrote, “Americans are long overdue for an answer to why they were told there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.”

Indeed, Americans are long overdue for an answer to this. To find one, however, the Times editors and the rest of the mainstream news media need to take a long, hard look in the mirror. It was the Times editors who allowed Judy Miller to run wild with scandal-riddled bagman Ahmad Chalabi on the front page of the paper and claim that Iraq was practically swimming in weapons of mass destruction.

Once the Times said it, the rest of the news media felt more than comfortable repeating it, augmenting it, making it axiomatic, and in the process provided excellent cover for the Bush administration to push its invasion agenda. It had a good beat, and they danced to it with all their might, with visions of high ratings and advertising revenues dancing in their heads. Their failures are manifest today, and there must be a reckoning within newsrooms all across the country.

It has taken almost a thousand days for the wall of lies and disinformation surrounding this invasion to begin to crumble. A lot of people have been killed and maimed in the process. Others have had their livelihoods and reputations crushed for daring to speak truth to power. That wall was built by a threesome – the White House, complicit Democrats and a debased news media. Today, they all have blood on their hands.

It will not be enough for George W. Bush and this administration to admit fault, and never mind the fact that such a moment will almost certainly never come. Those Democrats in the Senate who supported this invasion to protect their own self-interest, and those members of the news media that provided cover for the invasion by repeating the lies because it was easier than actually acting like journalists, owe a debt of sorrow and remorse to us all. The stain of their actions is still there, still with us. Their courage failed at the beginning of this. They must find the courage, today, to admit they were wrong.

Until this happens, the horrors they created will remain with us, still there, going nowhere but deeper into darkness.

[WilliamPitt]

1. Plink

I got a bug report thing when I posted this, so it doesn't show up on My Posts. So I'm dinging this to keep track of it.

Nothing to see here.

[EVDebs]

53. It's still there , Rummy knows where it's at , Pants On Fire !

" Donald Rumsfeld, Pants On Fire
RUMSFELD: We know for a fact, I know for a fact that no one in the Administration lied about weapons of mass destruction. — Fox News Radio, 6/21/05

VERSUS

RUMSFELD: We know where they are. They’re in the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat. — ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos, 3/30/03 "

http://thinkprogress.org/2005/06/23/donald-rumsfeld-pants-on-fire/

[Beetwasher]

2. Good Stuff. Personally, I Would Put "August" In Quotes

When referring to the NYT.

[redqueen]

3. Fantastic editorial.

I hope you're sending it to those Senators.

If they expect pretzel boy to stand up and admit his mistakes (hah), they should have the guts to do so themselves.

Bravo, Will.

[liberalnurse]

4. I formally wish to request an autographed copy of.....

"War on Iraq"
by Scott Ritter, William Rivers Pitt



I have the book.....but no autograph. How do I get another with an autograph by Will?

[MelissaB]

8. I ordered from Amazon this time last year and never received my book.

They postponed over and over and then finally cancelled the order.

[liberalnurse]

60. I got mine from Books and Company....

This is an Ohio store.

[hunter]

5. Slam Dunk, WilliamPitt

:yourock:

[spuddonna]

6. Unfortunately, you are right. Many of our Senators were afraid...

... of being seen as 'weak on terrah'. They feared for their careers and signed away their power, which I think enrages me even more than if they'd voted outright for the war. (How do you give up one of your main Constitutional powers!?)

I'm hoping that yesterday was our first step towards the light. But we have to keep pushing and fighting to get there.

Reid's stand on the Senate floor yesterday, and the Treasongate investigation are helping to uncover the corruption.

I believe Kerry and Edwards have apologized to our country. I have hope that more leaders will step forward and do the same...

[Shadoobie]

7. About those roadside bombs...

Gee, I wonder where they can be getting all the explosives for those roadside bombs. Maybe we need to remind people of the 377 tons that disappeared AFTER the war began.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/10/26/iraq.explosives/

Since the explosives could be used to detonate a nuclear bomb, why wasn't it a priority to secure them?

Inept and corrupt.

Greg

[Lugnut]

9. K - R

:yourock:

Thank you, Will.

[Carni]

10. I thought Boxer voted against the resolution?

I must have screwed that up somehow.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Nope, I did

Senator Boxer defends vote on Iraq resolution
By Tiffany Benjamin
Published: Thursday, October 24, 2002

On Monday afternoon, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-California), spoke to a crowd of about 200 Harvard Law students on issues ranging from terrorism to the Green Party to the fight between Republicans and Democrats over confirmation of President Bush’s judicial nominees. The speech was the HLS Democrats’ first major event of the year.

Much of Boxer’s time was spent discussing the recent resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq if the nation refuses to comply with U.N. weapons inspections. Boxer was among the minority voting against the resolution, which passed 77-23.

“To me, it wasn’t a hard call, because I had 25 to 30 completely unanswered questions,” Boxer said. “I believe war is a last resort.”

http://www.hlrecord.org/media/paper609/news/2002/10/24/News/Senator.Boxer.Defends.Vote.On.Iraq.Resolution-304772.shtml

Thanks.

[PunkPop]

43. Whew.

(wipes sweat from brow)

I don't need another Dem on my shitlist. I'm running out of room!

Barbara rocks!

[Carni]

80. I actually recalled something correctly? Write this down everyone!

Because this doesn't happen very often these days!

[Walt Starr]

11. This is HUGH!!!!111 That page you linked is filled with STICKILY LIES!!!!

Oops, sorry, went all Freeper on ya and forgot you linked to the White House.

:evilgrin:

[Vincardog]

13. Will you nailed it again. Welcome back.

[Cleita]

This is what we needed back in 2000, when the election

was decided by the Supreme Court. What is the point of an opposition party that turns the other cheek like ours has for the last five years? I am delighted that Reid finally took that step, to oppose. I hope all our Democrats start opposing loudly and vociferously. Maybe we still have a chance of not waking up one morning as subjects of another empire, like China or Saudi Arabia.

Reaching across the aisle is a two way action. In the Bush-2 years, it's been nothing but the Democrats offering themselves as doormats to the Republicans to walk down the aisle.

[symbolman]

14. I cover a whole HELL of a lot of this in my Film "Rove's War"

at Takebackthemedia.com - 2 DVD's at 150 minutes of RED MEAT including a majority of these issues. Much of the speculation I made while making the film has come True.

H2OMan gave me a Sterling Review, saying that everyone should get a copy of this film in order to FIGHT the inevitable SPIN (and here it comes in a FLOOD) with the FACTS I've assembled after a year of research, making this the Definitive Chronology of PlameGate (and the Downing Street Minutes connection) on film.

As for the member of Congress apologising for their votes, Congressman Conyers stated when addressing Joe Wilson in the footage I shot of the DSM Hearing in DC that, "You remind me sir, that if a Lot of us in this building had known of these facts we would have voted quite differently, this may have not even made it to the Floor.."

I worship Conyers and his crew of Congress Folks with SPINES - the 120 of them that signed the Letter to Bush, along with 560,000 American signatures, which he later delivered to the White House Gate (as seen in "Rove's War" as well) and I believe firmly that many of them DID NOT KNOW or have REAL access to the Proper INTEL.

When they asked for a more complete INTEL than the CIA report (which included the State Dept's addition that Iraq had WMD or Nuke capabilites was HIGHLY DUBIOUS as an addendum) they were supplied with a New Report - this new document was a White Paper WRITTEN BY THE WHIG ..

They simply were not ALLOWED REAL INTEL, between Bolton's ROGUE Intel group (Fleitz met Theilman at the door after Powell had assigned him to keep an eye on Bolton, and told Theilman that he wasn't ALLOWED into the daily meetings, that they wanted to "keep it in the FAMILY", and Powell's JOKE of a Briefing of the UN, Miller's being FED fake info, and Rumsfield's Cherry Picking crew in the Pentagon, a lot of these Congress people didn't have the foggiest idea WHAT WAS REAL and what was NOT.

A lot of these Congress folks are not very well informed - if you speak to them in person, you soon find out that some of the people they depend on to keep them in the groove are too busy to get the GOODS and keep them from making mistakes..

They should all be reading the DU so they'd know this stuff two years in advance, at least read Will's books and writings :)

I'm going to take the donations I'm receiving and make every effort to get a copy of my film to ANY CONGRESSPERSON that wants one - if they watch my work they will KNOW, Where, How, Who and WHY they were deceived..

I'm in AWE of Reid, he and others are now SAYING what WE have been saying (and what I researched for a year) for a long time- and with Fitz handing them a Hammer a lot of Nails are going to be popping up for a LOOONG time.

THIS may bring the House of Saud.. excuse me, the House of Bush DOWN :)

It's all in the media folks, this is a PR war and always has been, and the Democrats have pulled a BRILLIANT move.

I was a little tired of them bringing a plastic spoon to a Bowie Knife FIGHT, but now they've pulled it together - we may be looking at the start of a revolution.. just like that man that stood up and said to Senator McCarthy, "HAVE YOU NO SHAME, SIR?"

Great post Will, as usual - (Want a copy of the film?)

[mntleo2]

116. The Movie Is Great Symbolman

Every Friday Night we have a little gathering at my church called, "Friday Night At the Meaningful Movies". We usually show a movie around issues like the stolen election, evironmental movies, foreign movies about issues in other parts of the world, etc. Sometimes the director, or someone affiliated with the movie is there for the discussion we have after the movie is shown. We are part of the Wallingford and Phinney Peace groups as well as other interested groups and individuals.

I am wondering if it is all right to show it there? We are in Seattle and if you are anywhere near us, would you consider coming and discussing the movie? A few weeks ago we had the movie about Dr Helen Caldecott. Some people who worked with her from Physicians For Social Responsibility, Ground Zero, as well as the Lawyers For Social Responsibility came to speak with us about the work they are doing now and what they accomplished in the past. It was a great discussion. Our movie this week is about the exploitation of women in Mexico who are working at American-owned sweatshops. We usually have around 100 people attending, it is free but we take donations for the group so we can continue doing it. I can PM you this week's flyer so you can see what it is we do.

Would you PM me and let me know if it is ok to show it? If we did show it, is there someone local who could come and discuss it with us that you know? I recommended it to the guy who is running the movies and gave it to him to see. It a perfect movie to show in this format. I am encouraging some of the attendees to purchase it as well. Here is the website of the group sponsering the movies: http://bridgings.org

Hope this helps! :o)

Cat In Seattle

[symbolman]

121. That's a GREAT idea

I want as many people to see this as possible - it helps to keep it in the minds and hearts of people..

I Love Seattle, spent 8 years there had a son born on Pill Hill :)

As a matter of fact one of the guys from Soundgarden washed pots and pans for me (badly) when I was the manager of a restaurant there back in the grunge days - if only I'd quit my job and picked up my guitar and not looked back :)

I'll PM you about this, wish I could come and talk, I miss the old place - more in the PM and GLAD you liked the Film!

[madokie]

15. Sure wish you would send this to the Tulsa World

[e-mail]

It would be good to read Will Pitt in our paper.

[mzmolly]

16. Will this is hypocritical coming from someone who supported Kerry

early on.

TODAY you claim it was political expediency, yesterday you claimed it was because Bush lied?

Pardon me if I take issue with the self righteous tone of this post.

I supported Dean because he was opposed to the war. I understand the anger against the war, I understand why anyone would have trouble accepting the fact that some of our Senators/Congress people voted as they did.

And, I spoke out loudly against Kerry in the Primaries for his war vote. But I realize votes are not always black and white. The Democrats who voted for the resolution, urged inspections, they expected rationale. MISTAKE, ah yeah. Hind site is always 20/20.

But I don't understand how on earth can anyone claim to know that these Senators who would be duped before the entire world did so for "political expediency?" The politically expedient thing to do would have been to vote against this war frankly. I expect every Democrat who was placed in a position to vote on this war did so after serious soul searching. I expect it was one of the most difficult decisions they have ever had to make as law makers.

So, If your asking for an apology, I'd like to see yours first. You supported with all your might someone who voted yes on the war, apparently knowing/believing it was a vote for political expediency? I supported the same guy in the end, but I have a different take on his reasons for the war vote. I take him at his word which was "I trusted Colin Powell."

[Midlodemocrat]

17. Will didn't have the authority to order men and women to war.

So, his support of Kerry is moot.

[mzmolly]

19. If he's saying that he whole heartedly supported someone who voted

to send people to their death out of political expediency, his support is not moot.

He's making a claim that Democrats voted to support this war to cover their ass, and apparently saying that was ok with him early on?

When people suggested that Kerry voted for the war to cover his political ass, Will defended Kerry and claimed otherwise. I agree with will's previous position in the end. Democrats were lied to and they believed the lies AT THE TIME.

I don't have a problem with asking for accountability and or an apology from those who trusted Bush/Powel and the gang, but I take an issue with assigning them such a thoughtless/heartless motive for their votes.

[WilliamPitt]

21. "a thoughtless/heartless motive for their votes"

It is good you raise this, because it was the main reason I wrote this essay. So many of us want to cling to the idea that our Dem leaders do not make decisions based on political expediency, corporate donors, etc.

But they do. And they need to be called on it.

The IWR came a year and a month after 9/11. There were all kinds of data points augering towards a 'no vote,' but there was plenty of OSP-inspired 'evidence' to provide cover.

Our people did not want to vote against a war in an election season with 9/11 so close at hand.

Period.

The sooner we come to grips with this, the sooner we demand apologies for this, the sooner we begin to slog our way out of the muck.

[EFerrari]

26. Right on, Will. Our kitchen is dirty.

Time to break out the Fabuloso and clean it the hell up.

:applause:

Some truths are ugly. We have a choice to come to terms with bare naked ugly truth or become part of the complicity that landed us here.

[mzmolly]

29. Our Dem leaders would not kill our youth because of corporate donors.

Your starting to sound like Nader for gawd sakes. Our leaders voted for war based on lies. And 911 was part of the Bush plan for complacency. Bush needed the fear, and now were excusing him and placing blame on Democrats for being lied to?

Wake me when it's over man.

[WilliamPitt]

31. See post 27

The information was readily available.

[mzmolly]

35. I saw Barbara Boxer last night, she came to a different conclusion

than others that were lied to. Her vote is politically expedient today isn't it?

Ms. Boxer made the right decision. John Kerry did not. Both were lied to - one believed the lies. That's my posision, that's what allowed me to pull the trigger for John Kerry.

[WilliamPitt]

36. Fair enough

but just because you believe it does not make it the truth.

[mzmolly]

42. Ok?

One could say the same about your statements. Unless Kerry called you with a confession of which I'm not aware?

Is it not possible that two people can be lied to and one will believe the lies while the other does not? I don't think it's fair for you to assign motive to those who "voted for the war" I do think it's fair to ask them to take responsibility and apoligize, and I'll leave it at that.

Peace Mr. Pitt

[Midlodemocrat]

25. But, in the end, didn't we all support someone who voted

to authorize the war? Didn't we all vote for Kerry?

I honestly believe that the good guys who voted for the war didn't believe that their leaders would lie to them about something as serious as war...because most of the good guys went to war and fought, or at the very least knew the horrors of it. I honestly think that a man like Kerry who fought in Vietnam could not or maybe would not choose to believe that ANYONE would authorize aggressive action if they didn't truly believe in the reasons for it.

Of course, we know better.

[mzmolly]

32. I agree with you, and my beliefs allowed me to support Kerry.

If I thought he was simply in the back pocket of corporations and would send kids to their death for political reasons, I'd NEVER have supported him.

[Midlodemocrat]

39. Same here.

I supported Dean in the primary, until they crucified the poor guy over that scream, but then I wholeheartedly supported Kerry.

I can't imagine ANYONE who fought in a horror of a war like Vietnam authorizing the use of force in a mundane or routine manner; but I can imagine people who chose to defer serving, ahem, Cheney, Bush, etc., feeling so all fricking powerful that they thought the lives of the children of the 'little people' didn't matter.

I think our leaders who served and granted permission to Bush to go into Iraq deserve a pass. I have to believe that they couldn't imagine that Bush would be so evil, or else I can't believe in them.

[mzmolly]

46. I agree. And, if it were so clear cut and Dems would blindly vote for

war regardless, Bush would not have needed to lie.

[WilliamPitt]

18. I supported Kerry

but also busted his balls over that vote:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/122203A.shtml

WRP: I wrote a book last September called "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know," which stated that Iraq's WMD capabilities had been grossly exaggerated by the administration, and therefore their rationale for war had no standing. That book, over the last fifteen months, has been proven to have been absolutely correct on this point. A lot of people read that book, and have subsequently turned away from your campaign for one reason: These people believe this data was out there before the Iraq vote, that it was available to you, and they believe you chose to ignore it or disregard it and vote in favor of the war. How would you answer that charge?

===

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121003A.shtml

John Kerry's liberal record in the Senate is remarkable in its depth and consistency. His public stand against the Vietnam war, augmented by his status as a decorated veteran of that conflict, made history. His attacks on the Reagan administration, his fight to expose the Iran-Contra/BCCI scandal, are among the main reasons the public became schooled on those travesties. His time on the Foreign Relations Committee places him head and shoulders above the other Democratic candidates in terms of real-world foreign policy experience.

Yet today, John Kerry teeters on the edge of total irrelevancy in the race for the White House. Former Vermont Governor Howard Dean holds a double-digit lead over Kerry in New Hampshire, and is leading or surging elsewhere. Kerry's campaign suffered a blowout several weeks ago when he fired his campaign manager, an act that led to the resignations of several other prominent staffers. While this may have ultimately been a healthy bloodletting, it caused the national press to write stories about "The Ailing Kerry Campaign," obscuring any and all policy discussions that would have served his run.

On Monday night, the Associated Press reported the huge news that Al Gore had decided to publicly endorse Howard Dean. Was Gore's endorsement a repudiation of the DLC? Is he publicly distancing himself from the powerful Clinton-controlled wing of the party? Or does Gore just think Howard Dean is the best man for the job? Slice those issues whichever way you please, but at the end of the day it was yet another brick in the ever-growing wall standing between Kerry and the nomination.

How did this happen? Kerry has all the components of a flat-out frontrunner. When did the wheels come off? Ask virtually anyone who accounts themselves a member of that liberal Democratic base, and they?ll answer in a heartbeat. The wheels came off on October 11, 2002, the day John Kerry voted "Yes" on George W. Bush's Iraq War Resolution.

===

A lot of strange things happen during campaigns. I supported Kerry because, by and large, I believed him to be the most able opponent of Bush. I believed, and still believe, that his Iraq War vote was deeply damaging. But does that make me a hypocrite? Should I have supported Dean? Perhaps, but Dean's campaign failure is its own best example for why I believe I chose wisely. If he couldn't beat Kerry, he wasn't going to get past Bush.

"The politically expedient thing to do would have been to vote against this war frankly," you say. I could not disagree more. In this country, especially after 9/11 and with elections on the horizon, the expedient thing was to go along for the ride.

[mzmolly]

20. Will, you defended Kerry against claims that his vote was made for

political reasons. Senators have to answer for years for their votes.

In 2006 anyone who voted for the war is going to have trouble answering for that vote. Especially when some start trumpeting the "they did it to cover their political ass" B.S.

The insinuation is that Democrats KNEW Bush was lying, do you believe that Will?

It's one thing to ask Dems to apologize for being mislead and trusting the Bush cabal. It's another thing altogether to ask them to apologize for sending people to die so they could continue on the Government payroll.

[WilliamPitt]

22. "The insinuation is that Democrats KNEW Bush was lying"

No. The insinuation is that they didn't bother to find out one way or the other, but voted for the war because it was an election season, and nobody ever lost an election by voting for war.

[mzmolly]

28. The day I believe that Democrats would kill people to benefit them-

selves politically is the day I throw in the towel.

Democrats had a choice as to who to believe, true. But they did not have an independent investigation into whether or not Bush conspired with his cabinet to mislead the nation before their votes.

Of course WE believed Ritter, and Wilson and others. And 149 Democrats felt as we did. But, I can't entirely fault the victim of a lie. I have to give that person the benefit of the doubt. Had the Dems voted for the war with truthful information, I'd say there is no excuse, but they did not. They voted for the war because Bush manipulated intelligence and Powell and others lied to the world on *'s behalf.

I assume the Dems who voted for the war believed the lies they were told. If I didn't believe that there is no way I'd have supported Kerry/Edwards in a Presidential Election.

[WilliamPitt]

30. Question

Who did you vote for in 2004?

If you voted for Kerry, are you not guilty of the same hypocrisy you accuse me of?

We're all dirty in this.

[mzmolly]

34. I voted for Kerry believing him when he said he was mislead.

You apparently voted for him believing he killed kids to save his political ass?

Big difference.

I believed for a time that Kerry voted for the resolution for political reasons, I researched, read his floor statments on the day of the vote, and came to a different conclusion. I could not have supported him if I didn't believe otherwise.

[Midlodemocrat]

45. I don't know if I agree with that, Will

Maybe I am being too pollyanna-ish, but my dad fought in Korea and WWII and he said that if he were in a position of power, he would have to think long and hard about voting to authorize a war like Vietnam or Iraq.

I honestly believe that the people in Congress who served in combat chose to believe that there was no way a President would send young men and women to their deaths without compelling evidence.

I hope I am right.

[Peace Patriot]

107. Are you forgetting Hubert Humphrey?

[Peace Patriot]

108. self-delete; dupe.

[symbolman]

27. If anyone had the pleasure of watching Barbara Boxer

on the Daily Show they would have heard that she had the honor of voting AGAINST the war.

The crowd went wild. But the best part was that she admitted to actually EXAMINING the INTEL and seeing that it was STINKY..

She saw on the NIE the portion where the State Dept objected STRONGLY and realised that all was not what it appeared, then took the appropriate step.

I've met her, and if any woman wanted to run for Prez I would back her in a Heartbeat over Hillary - of all people Hillary SHOULD have known better, but I believe she DID vote for political haymaking visavee running in the future.

At that moment I swore she had lost my vote forever.

[mzmolly]

37. I saw Barbara Boxer, and that's why I say a vote for war was ignorant.

Barbara will go down in history as a hero, along with 149 other Democrats.

I'd vote for Barbara Boxer in a heartbeat. My husband said the same thing last night. She's awesome!

[Tamarin]

76. Hillary's vote disturbed me more than any other.

I felt that she would know the truth about Saddam, she only had to ask her husband. That vote messed with my head, LOL. I kept thinking.....well, maybe they know something that we don't, even though the empirical evidence pointed away from Iraq having WMD.

[Mechatanketra]

103. Oh, boy: the righteous side of Wrong.

Perhaps, but Dean's campaign failure is its own best example for why I believe I chose wisely. If he couldn't beat Kerry, he wasn't going to get past Bush.

Apples and oranges: nominations aren't elections. Among other things:
1) Dean wouldn't be running against Bush in a caucus in any state.
2) Dean's results in tiny states like Iowa and New Hampshire wouldn't be reported (and distorted) days ahead of time to influence his showing in gigantic states like California, New York, and Illinois. (Good Bob, I love living in a state with 21 electors and basically no frickin' say in who'll they'll be choosing between.)
3) Dean wouldn't be subject to second-guessing about his ability compared to Bush to run against someone else entirely.

But more importantly: it seems logicaly inassailable that Kerry's campaign failure is all the moreso its own best example for why you chose poorly; if Kerry couldn't beat Bush, he wasn't going to get past, uh, Bush. It is a plausible conjecture that Dean could not beat Bush; it is a verified certainty that Kerry would not.

Ironically, this reminds me of the attitude taken by the odd DU hawk defending war-voting Dems by claiming it was a vote that had to be cast by anyone who cared about American security because of the compelling WMD case ... despite the fact that (a) the peaceniks they were deriding had long supplied arguments that there was no WMD case, and (b) the peaceniks were right. Same deal here: I'm kinda tired of hearing people tout the virtues of their side in a past disagreement (and/or criticize the opposing side) after it turns out they were wrong.

[Cults4Bush]

58. How on earth could they trust them?

They expected rationale? HAH!
From this group of thugs?
Like they never heard of PNAC?
Like they dont understand what the neoconster agenda was/is?
Kerry knew damn well who he was dealing with, remember Iran/Contra?

Thats BS!

Sorry not buying into it at all.

Many people threw all their weight behind Kerry because at that time many of us understood that the only way to have a chance in Iraq was to change the leadership to someone the world could at least work with. Not out of party or candidate loyalty because this mulitple issue item was just that important.

Furthermore why didn't they walk out, scream their heads off or protest in some high profile way when they saw that their "trust" was being betrayed in spades and if I may say so in a most humiliateing go fuck yourself kind of manner? Seems to me if what you say is even a little bit true I'd be freaking the hell out. Come on, there is no more grievously massive and horrible thing a country can do than to launch an offensive war. Don't you think they would have and could have made a lot more friggin noise if the most awful thing that could ever happen on their watch was in fact happening?

Im asking for an apology not for us US citizens or even our soldiers. I want it for the Iraqi people and I want it for the people who will die in terrorist attacks in the future due to all the recruiting and training the have recived at our hands.

Even Jerry freaking Springer understands the principles behind what Will said here today as I heard Jerry saying the same exact thing a little more kindly this morning.

The rest of your post sounds like a personal issue with Will, so I most certainly wont comment on that, but your defense of Dems who voted for the IWR because they trusted an obviously Ideologue Corporate driven Theocracy building administration is seriously lacking in the convincing department.

[mzmolly]

88. I don't care if your convinced.

If you would willingly vote for someone who knew Bush was lying when they voted to send kids to war, that's your business.

I hold the position that the majority if not all the Democrats who voted for the res. did not think Bush/Powell would lie to the UN and to the American People about such serious matters. I believe that Democrats felt that Iraq was a threat based upon what they were told. I also note that they pushed for inspections not war. The authority for Bush to act was supposed to be a last resort. If you'll note the resolution itself says that Iraq is a grave/gathering threat with nuke capability and a connection to 911. :eyes:

Again, your entitled to think as you wish.

As for the apology, I feel they do owe us an apology, but not for voting to save their political asses, they owe us one for trusting this administration.

Furthermore why didn't they walk out, scream their heads off or protest in some high profile way when they saw that their "trust" was being betrayed in spades and if I may say so in a most humiliateing go fuck yourself kind of manner? Seems to me if what you say is even a little bit true I'd be freaking the hell out. Come on, there is no more grievously massive and horrible thing a country can do than to launch an offensive war. Don't you think they would have and could have made a lot more friggin noise if the most awful thing that could ever happen on their watch was in fact happening?

Uhm, this is what's happening now. It took a while for Dems to smell the coffee and realize the WMD would not be found, and that the connection to Al Qaida was non existent. The Bush admin BLAMED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY for mis-information ... And, the Senate was shut down just yesterday to force an investigation in the matter of pre-war intel and whether or not Bush manipulated it. WE know they did, it's a matter of proof.

Again if you remain "unconvinced" that's your business. Mr. Pitt has considered my position, and that's who I addressed in my initial post.

[Cults4Bush]

93. Hmm... ok.

All fine and fair, even reasoned... I completely concur with you on nearly every point.

Your initial initial line is BS as I stated in my first post though, I worked my ass for Kerry quite simply because he was someone the world could work with and I figured/hoped that would help get us out of Iraq much more quickly, thus saving that many more lives, a lot of them I assume would have been the kids that he sent to war when he initially voted for IWR, thus making it a bit more even Karma wise in my book.

You can keep thinking what you want about every single Dem in Congress and Senate being so pure as to not have voted for the IWR which gives authorization (as Kerry noted the other day) to go start a pre-emptive war (hint hint pre-emptive wars are not good for democracy period) at the descretion of the rat bastardest administration ever, for no political expediency. Seriously go on and publicly post that and I'll continue to post that it is BS and point out the obvious. If we want to hold the RW to account then all Dems must be held to account as well otherwise we look like even bigger hypocrits than what you claimed Will to be.

I am not going to bother saying what I think about what transpired in the amount of time it took them to smell the coffee whilst we all had already drank two pots... and truly its remarkable to me that you, an obviously very intelligent person would do something like shout "the bush admin BLAMED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY for mis-information" as the reasoning for lack of coffee being smelled. Uh and yes I read DU as well I am hyper aware of the actions of the Dems in Senate. So snarks right back to ya.

Perhaps I should point out to you that this line of yours:
"As for the apology, I feel they do owe us an apology, but not for voting to save their political asses, they owe us one for trusting this administration."
Was exactly what I was saying for the most part, except that I felt they owed it to the world more than us.

[mzmolly]

95. Your points are all very well taken.

You are absolutely right, the authorization did not end with Iraq and it was ignorant to give this administration the "blank check."

However, my personal contempt with the vote is at their collective ignorance, and not at what I consider political opportunism. I can forgive ignorance, I can't forgive a calculated political move when other lives are at risk. I think they are so danged insulated that they don't get to smell of coffee as quickly as we do, and that's unfortunate to say the least.

Apologies for my tone ok?

Peace, and thanks for the response. :hi:

PS: when I said they owe "US" an apology, I'm speaking about the world. I couldn't agree more with your clarification as to who deserves an apology.

[Cults4Bush]

110. Wow... thanks.

Thanks for your apology and my sincerest apologies to you as well, for my tone.

I see exactly were you are coming from now and have nothing bt respect for your viewpoint on this Mzmolly.

Mayb the problems arise from the insulation and maybe thats why Dean was so in touch and knew that Iraq was a bad deal. Bravest damn thing Ive ever seen political wise was Dean saying Saddams capture does not make the world safer. Dean rode the subway... he knew.

Maybe an anti-political insulation campaign? lol..

Thanks again, it was a pleasure debating a little with you.

[mzmolly]

115. Same here. And, thank you for the reality check.

I supported "the man" Dean in the primaries because he spoke truth to power, but I have no choice but to extend the benefit of the doubt to our "not so enlightened politicians" today. Let's face it not everyone is a frikken smart as we are! :P

Isn't it amazing how all the Democrats sound like Dean did 18 months ago? Sheesh, ironic as hell.

And he was criticized for being "right." Guess that's a whole nother thread ey?

Here's to hopin that the cabal is going to be taken down by the truth in the near!

:hi:

[MadisonProgressive]

23. Wasn't it also the 2003 SOTU address that he said

"Iraq is a GRAVE and GATHERING threat"

That sounds pretty damn ominous!

[MadisonProgressive]

24. dupe

[lapislzi]

33. Props to my favorite ronin Democrat

They are still answerable to we the people.

[Writer]

38. Re: Democrats "voting for the war"

Damned if they did, damned if they didn't, Will.

[WilliamPitt]

40. Indeed

and we're all damned now.

Admitting their error is the way out.

[mzmolly]

50. How bout admitting they were "duped?"

:shrug:

[WilliamPitt]

52. Hm

If I knew, they could have known, and should have known.

[mzmolly]

56. Hm. Your an investigative reporter Will.

Just because you came to the right conclusion does not mean that this is true:

If I knew this – me, wee little me – then how is it possible that all these Senators allowed themselves to be “tricked”? The answer to this is political ugliness of the purest ray serene: they voted to approve the war because the midterms were around the corner, because a Presidential election was coming, because a bunch of these Senators wanted to run for that office, because voting to approve the war was the most politically expedient option. Simply, they voted to protect their jobs and their positions and their aspirations, and assisted Bush in throwing thousands of American soldiers and Iraqi civilians to the wolves.

I know you KNEW, YOUR ONE of the reasons I KNEW. I felt your frustration all along. But, there is NO WAY I believe that Democrats callously sent our kids to die KNOWING they were being lied to, KNOWING we'd never find weapons, KNOWING there was no connection to Al Qaida in Iraq. "KNOWING" Will. Key word.

Your book illustrates that they should have done more research, they should have listened to you instead of Colin Powell. But, your not simply asking why they did not know. Your insinuating something far beyond that.

If you have some evidence that they knew they were being lied to and did not give a shit, please share it. If you don't. your remarks are irresponsible and I hope you'll find a way to ask for an apology, without insinuating that Democrats knowingly killed our kids to get elected.

[Writer]

83. It might help

because it will underscore Bush's inability to accept responsibility. We would be the adults yet again.

However, I recall that October 2002 vote as a maddening example of our diseased culture following the terror attacks. The calculus of that vote is a complicated derivation of a feared public, political manipulation, and a cowed media. I wish we could keep that vote in perspective, given these circumstances.

You make a few of those points in your editorial, yet I beg this rhetorical question: Where would we be if they had voted against that resolution, given that diseased era?

[symbolman]

41. I really can't believe that right HERE on the

DEMOCRATICUNDERGROUND that people are saying that the Democrats NEED to apologise when they JUST BIATCHSLAPPED FRIST and ALL the Republicans in One FELL Media SWOOP..

Can WE back the DEMOCRATS?

I keep hearing the intimations of GREENIES and in my opinion the only thing that matches that kind of Green is what comes out of a newborn baby's ass.

*I* am a DEMOCRAT and I REFUSE to DISS them, especially NOW.

[EFerrari]

44. Point taken, and I forgive you about all that Green stuff.

lol!

[mzmolly]

47. And those in a position of real power here have to be cautious about

the talking points that they encourage as they will bite us in the as in the near future.

Thanks SYMBOLMAN.

:hi:

[symbolman]

55. Ahh, and thank you too for your courage to speak out

It's hard to have one opinion and stick to it when you write both sides of the argument, but it's also a great way to cover your ass in the future when you fill out the "loyalty oath" :)

I won't say that I haven't been upset with Democrats and demanded some action or more spine - but I refuse to believe that somehow we can make THEM apologise knowing that Bush executes EVERYONE, the retarded, little kids, women, innocents of all ilk, those standing next to a smart bomb that blows the whole block up, people boiling neck deep in water in their attics in NO, etc, etc..

WHY in the HELL SHOULD WE apologise? Would YOU apologise to HITLER?

And for the record this isn't a Bush is Hitler crack, how about ATTILA the HUN when he leaves a stack of SKULLS where a village used to be..

You don't apologise, you SUCKER PUNCH THEM. and then you don't STOP KICKING THEM IN THE GUTS.

I LIKE what I'm seeing, no apologies neccessary if you are TRYING TO FIX IT at minimum.

[mzmolly]

62. I like what I'm seeing too, and we should continue to encourage

the Dems to fight hard.

:toast:

[WilliamPitt]

48. Wow

Well, I'm not a Green.

I think that before we demand that Bush apologize and admit error, our own party leaders have to do the same.

If I could write a fact-laden book two months before the vote and seven months before the war, certainly US Senators could have gotten the information and voted accordingly.

You might have missed the thread I put up yesterday for Reid, the one with more than a thousand posts in it.

I see this as doing exactly as you demand: backing the Democrats. They have to do this if they are to succeed.

[mzmolly]

49. Will if you were only asking them to apoligize for error NO ONE here

would take issue. It's when you assign them dark motives for their votes that it becomes counter productive.

Take out the part where you assign them motive for their votes, and I'll keep my big trap shut. And, perhaps be mindful of timing as SM suggested. ;)

[WilliamPitt]

51. OK

On the one hand, you accuse me of hypocrisy for arguing on behalf of Kerry during the election. You supported Dean, and are therefore above that stain.

But on the other hand, you now argue that I soften my words, be mindful of the tactics, etc. In short, you advise that I do exactly what earned me the hypocrite tag from you.

Make up your mind.

And, for the record, this is perfect timing. Elections are a year away, and the issue is right out front.

[mzmolly]

57. No what earned you the tag was supporting someone you believed

would kill people for political gain, while claiming to be opposed to the war.

I voted for the same person, believing he was lied, to and bought it, unfortunately.

I'll admit that before I researched Kerry's position, I sounded much like you do today. But, upon researching and reading his floor speech and hearing him answer questions on this - I came away convinced that I was wrong. And, I apologized. I could never have voted for Kerry believing that he was just an opportunist who would send people to die to cover his ass.

[WilliamPitt]

79. Yo molly

Your comments have given me pause. I'm going to rework the essay accordingly before I turn it in.

Thanks.

[mzmolly]

82. Thank you sir.

:yourock:

I really appreciate your willingness to hear others opinions. Willingness to listen is part of what makes people good leaders. You are in a position of leadership and I am thankful you use it wisely.

I'm not as eloquent with words as you are, so I'll just say once again - thanks.

PS I look forward to the revised version. :*

[mzmolly]

86. PS.

My apologies for how I opened up discussion on this matter initially.

:hi:

[WilliamPitt]

87. Thanks

[symbolman]

66. Wow Wow

I said People Will, why would you think I was talking about you specifically?

I think I did ask you that once and you said that the PDA was a big umbrella so that Greens were present in the org as well.

What bothers me the most are Trojan Horse Greens. I've seen them here. They come on in and are welcomed as the Democrats are the Big Tent Party, and they make themselves right at home - they espouse many of the same feelings that Democrats do, but they aren't, and sooner or later it becomes apparent..

What THEY are trying to do is to infiltrate and shift folks over to their side, thinking they will build a big group, but they won't. The Greens will never win a major election.

To me I see two ships in the water here in America, a Battleship and a Destroyer - the Destroy represents the Republicans, blowing the shit out of everything that stands in their way, social programs, whatever..

The Battleship represents the Democrats, they are FIGHTING for the rights of the PEOPLE ON BOARD - they don't have nearly the same ammunition, but lots of heart and conviction and will throw cans of Chef-boy-R-Dee at the Destroyer if that's all they have left..

Then there's the RowBoat.. The Rowboat represents the Greens, and are trying to yell at the folks on the Battleship to JOIN THEM, maybe bring some of the guns from the Battleship since they don't want to go unprotected..

Now the Rowboat COULD join the Battleship and actually help it to run smoother, add more ammo, etc - but they are delusional and believe that if they get enough folks to jump ship to the Rowboat that it will miraculously turn into, oh, I dunno, an AirCraft Carrier..

But oddly enough the truth is the Rowboat would just sink under the weight -- too many captains, not enough cooks is the problem.

Sometimes the Rowboat gets angry because it's not getting enough attention from the Battleship, as the Destroyer could care less and won't even waste the ammo on it - so the Rowboat, seeking SOMEONE to give them attention will, much like a cat, get BETWEEN the Battleship and it's Supply Station..

While they are forcing the Battleship to dodge and weave to avoid hitting the Rowboat the Destroyer decides that it now has the freedom while the Battleship is so engaged to do MORE damage, and to blow the shit out of everything, LOTS more damage..

But the Destroyer WILL NOT touch the Rowboat because it's a GREAT distraction, and a useful idiot designed just for them.

I'll stick with the Battleship, but would look kindly on the Rowboat for assistance if the Battleship gets sunk and the survivors need a place to weep and gnash their teeth - while their combined weight SINKS the Rowboat, which is not well supplied, but has plenty of hot air, and mouths that talk out of both sides..

The dead wood in the water would be the Libertarians :)

As for the HUGH thread you got going that's a plus, appreciated but if it was someone else I would think it's good insurance if they ever wanted the luxury of having it both ways, slamming Democrats AND Supporting them, and I've seen folks do that here too..

But at some point in time we have to Choose sides, Shirts or Skins, and do what works for everyone, too many cooks spoil the broth and all that...

I'd still stick with President Kerry, I met him in New Hampshire, he refused to leave a gymnasium until he'd answered EVERY PERSON'S QUESTION, including the Janitor, and he is a REAL MAN, an ACTUAL Hero.

As a Veteran I appreciate the horror he went through and the honor he deserves is something I think I feel more than the average citizen can, if they haven't been in the military like we have..

Plus his wife invited us all to go to the Carol King concert with them that night, would BUSH have done that? Would the Green candidate have done that?

NO, because the Green candidate wouldn't have had room in his 1973 Volkswagen.

Don't think I'm slamming you Will, just venting about some of the folks here that are actual Greens, but won't admit it - and they should get OUT OF THE WAY. But that's the problem I have mostly with the Greens - they ALL want to LEAD, to the last man or woman..

The only thing worse is a Libertarian who wants to set up a Toll Booth in front of his house :)

[mzmolly]

69. LOL

I like this post.

:)

[WilliamPitt]

74. Ah

I thought you were referring to me because you were replying to me in a thread I started.

Silly me. ;)

[demobabe]

75. Symbolman likes you, Will

That's why Take Back The Media puts you in their movies. :)

Symbolman says you still owe him a beer!

:)

[symbolman]

85. HEY

don't be winking at me when the wife is on the thread..sheesh, I thought we had the signals all worked out..

[Peace Patriot]

111. As anybody who reads Patrick O'Brien knows, you can do a lot of damage

and even win a battle with a rowboat. But I think you view politics quite differently than I do--as a big battle between two giants. What I see, in that metaphor, is all the peons losing heads and limbs, and getting blown to pieces, or falling overboard and drowning, in the service of two war machines both of which view them as cannon fodder.

Mostly, I don't buy the metaphor. Politics is not a military battle. It is or should be a realm of open expression, many ideas, creative thinking, competing proposals, the development of leadership, the consideration of all interests, and a realm in which each citizen is equal to every other, and the goal is for the best ideas, and the best leaders, to arise, and for the society to reach consensus on important decisions that affect everyone.

A military battle metaphor excludes the kinder, and perhaps wiser and more humane, values of non-warriors. The purpose is not, or should not be, to beat each other to a pulp, but find the path to cooperation and a balance of interests and powers.

I am a lifelong Democratic voter, with 40 years experience of voting and participating in politics. I go back to JFK's campaign. I have many "Green" opinions, and agree with Ralph Nader on many issues. I have seen my party become more and more and more corrupt over the decades, capped by their most traitorous corruption--on the $4 billion electronic voting boondoggle, the selling away of our right to vote to far rightwing Bushite corporations, who now control vote tabulation with "TRADE SECRET," PROPRIETARY programming code. I also saw them sell working people down the river with NAFTA, GATT and all the other schemes of the global corporate predators.

This politics as military battle is the game of well-healed people with entrenched power and money. It is not open enough, not flexible enough, not broadminded enough, to represent all of us. And perhaps if it were not so entrenched as an all or nothing battle between two giants, but rather as a process of coalition-making and consensus, it would better represent all citizens of this democracy.

I do see the point, in the current situation, of coalescing behind an alternative to outright fascism, above all so that we can gain an opportunity for swift, true election reform at the national level. I think that the non-transparency of our elections is the Priority #1 problem of our democracy, and it's going to be a long, hard slog at the state/local level to restore transparency, whereas almost any Democrat in the WH--given what the grass roots now knows about our fraudulent election SYSTEM--will have to be responsive on this good government issue.

It's possible that Diebold and ES&S will decide to install a War-voting Democrat (but not any other) for their own strategic reasons, or that the anti-Bush momentum will result in such a blowout victory in '08 that it overcomes the electronic fraud. (I'm of the camp that thinks that Kerry would have blown Bush Jr. away if he'd taken a strong antiwar stance; but that his tepid stance resulted in an insufficient margin of victory to overcome the 3%-5% vote switch they pulled on the east coast combined with the visible vote suppression in Ohio--he won, but not big enough.)

In whatever way a Democrat might get into the WH, if that happens then we must strive with all our might to restore the integrity of our elections.

---------

On the dispute above, regarding how/why Democrats voted for Bush's war, I think everyone is forgetting fear as a motivator. Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld were at the height of the power, smashing dissent everywhere--in the CIA, in the military, in Congress. Then there are the anthrax letters, Paul Wellstone's mysterious death, and the general climate of fear in DC--not fear of Saddam Hussein, fear of the Bush junta. (Wellstone was killed after the vote, just before the '02 by-elections--and of course voted against the war--but there were subsequent spending votes on unaccountable billions of dollars that were also decisive.) I heard Dennis Kucinich speak about this fearful atmosphere in Congress. It was palpable. And it would tend to strike the most ambitious the hardest, because so much was on the line for them. I think many succumbed to fear of being destroyed, or fear for their families, if they were to openly battle these fascist thugs.

This is why I have never judged Kerry's behavior on election night, and never will, unless I learn more. It's a cheap shot to criticize a man with a target on his back, or on the backs of his loved ones. I don't know that that was the case, but it is a real enough possibility that I simply can't judge him.

[symbolman]

124. I appreciate your wanting loftier values and they used to exist

I recall as a kid left and right BarBeQueing in the back yard, spirited or drunk debates about what's right for the country (and then in the end ALL would be Forgiven as we were ALL Americans and would fight to the death for the other man to have his say, whether we agreed with him or not), etc (I'm 53) - I also recall being drafted and watching for years during dinner time OUR MEN holding up Strings of EARS of the enemy, necklaces of brutality WHILE I ate dinner at my mom's table, and thinking, "In a few years they are going to FORCE me to do that, and I catch moths hovering over lightbulbs and carry them outside so they don't get burned, yet *I* will be forced to KILL people I have no beef with.."

I wasn't mad at anyone. But while growing up it seemed like each day I would pick up the Daily Journal, and there on the front was another victim of the "battle" for DECENCY - Martin Luther King one day, another Jack Kennedy, soon after, Bobby Kennedy.. then RUN with the Nuns in Catholic School to Pray for John F K's Life to not end, and looking at a guy NAILED to a CROSS that preached PEACE and LOVE..

I got drafted and joined the Air Force to avoid a two year stint that almost assuredly could have killed me dead. I still don't attend High School Reunions because it reminds me of the little old ladies you see in Russia coming out to sweep each day, NO MEN, NO Little Old men, all killed during war - and my classmates are reduced to more WOMEN, the normal attrition of baldness, heart attacks, etc for the men in my age bracket that would make them Miss the Reunion aren't an issue - MANY are missing and were since school got out because they were SLAUGHTERED after graduation.

I made it, but don't want to be reminded - or think of my cousins who would come to family reunions and Xmas parties at my mom's house and sit and stare in a chair, then throw themselves to the floor when a car backfired in our suburban neighborhood. Some just drank themselves to death unable to deal with being taught to NEVER kill, only to be told to ONLY KILL.. Humans don't do well when the rug gets pulled out good and solid.

My metaphor I think is valid because there is NO GIVE thanks to Corporatists masquerading as Conservatives and Republicans.. and that's all they are - their mantra is SLASH and BURN and get RICH.

THat's why I think of this as WAR, we have no other options, we are left with none. Allowed none. REBUFFED Soundly when we try to inject some Humanity into OUR govt.. and it's NOT even the People's Govt anymore..

It's WARMART.

Believe me, if I had two lives I would TAKE by country back by ALL MEANS NECESSARY. But since I don't want to leave my wife and son penniless I fight the other "War" - the PR WAR, and that's all it's boiled down to right now..

As well as who has the resources. I USED to "outrun" the cops on Friday nights with my 440 Challenger just for Fun. But later I realised that they were starting to cheat - you can outrun their Radios if you do it right, but NOT when they change the law that says once I passed over the state line at 100 + mph from Wisconsin into Illinois the Wisconsin Cops could go piss up a rope - as I slowed down to 35 so I wasn't Speeding when I hit the state line, the Illinois cops would be standing there laughing..

They'd tell the Wisconsin cops that THEY had NO REASON to arrest me, wasn't speeding in their State..

Try that NOW kiddies - the Humanity is GONE. The playfulness, the spontenaety (sp?), the SLACK is gone that makes us ENJOY the Pursuit of Happiness is now UNAVAILABLE.

And sure, no one has ever won an insurgency battle, and never will.. so yeah, maybe a rowboat CAN win - but my main complain is the EGO problems inherent in smaller organizations, everyone THINKS THEY should be the leader, everyone HAS to have their needs met..

But guess what, the DESTROYER works like a well oiled machine - THEY are in LOCKSTEP - the Battleship is so busy being "FAIR" to everyone that NO ONE wins in the end.. the entire GROUP LOSES because they are splintered, destroyed by their blindness to cooperation, to be able to give UP their special interest in order to WIN, and to THEN address those issues when it's SAFE to do so..

When you have WON the battle.

THIS is why Democrats lose over and over - they CATER to everyone. The Greens do it even MORE, or battle over EGOS so they are even Worse OFF than the Democrats, who at LEAST would have a CHANCE if they would STICK together in LOCKSTEP - Like the are doing NOW in Congress..

So I won't trash them when they are doing what they should have been doing all along - we will IGNORE the million Pleas until WE have WON, and THEN WE will SHOW our Humanity and finally Listen to those please and fullfill them..

But I WILL give you this, I DO agree with Nader about ONE THING, and that is that until it gets SO BAD that people can no longer stand it, when Bush has LOOTED the treasury and killed americans in droves, starved them, killed off unions, etc, etc..

THEN the Progressives will join in LOCKSTEP and WIN.

I appreciate your thoughts and ideas, sorry for the metaphors, but with Bush I see nothing but BATTLES :)

[Ksec]

54. my opinion on why our side voted the way they did

They werent sure. Risk was great either way and they figured our wrath could be handled by throwng us a bone later.
You have the POTUS saying he has proof of WMDs and a few others in the CIA being shouted down and threatened if they went against the grain. It was a certain political death for some because the reicht had changed the story line, making it the fight against the terrorists who attacked us. The Dems were in a no win situation and they didnt have the courage to vote their conscience. They took the safe vote and thats why we end up where we are today/

[lonestarnot]

59. Excellent post will pitt! Darkness upon them!

[Emit]

61. Barbara Boxer voted 'no' I think, didn't she? n/t

[mzmolly]

64. Yes along with 148 other Democrats

in the Senate and congress combined. :hi:

[wiggs]

63. Points worth fleshing out, IMO

As you say:

"The book stated unequivocally that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, no ties to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda or 9/11, and thus no reason to go to war there."

If memory serves (not a sure thing), the IWR was conditioned on the administration making two findings: 1) that any Iraq threats were IMMINENT, and 2) that Iraq ties to Al Queda are demonstrable

So, at the time, it was not even enough that Iraq had WMD...it had to be that they were able to be DELIVERED and the threat of delivery or proliferation was IMMINENT. Just having WMD was not part of IWR conditions. This is, to me, an important point as we finally get ready to revisit the whole issue. And it is why, IMO, that if we happen to someday find a pound of anthrax somewhere in Iraq, it is not that important and does relieve the WH of pressure.

Also, in regards to

"Reid gave the Republican Congress a good tongue-lashing on Tuesday, one that was richly deserved. Yet the Democrats who got behind this thing in the first place have not come close to absolving themselves of their responsibility for what has taken place. “We were misled,” goes the Democratic refrain these days. “We were tricked. We were duped.” "

I am not one to cut dem leaders slack...yet it is not difficult to imagine that some in Congress were legitimately fooled by private WH briefings and dire warnings. They were told that the WH has much more classified information that they couldn't share or that they would release later. Few at the time knew the depth of dishonesty of these guys. Further, they may have truly believed that they weren't voting for war, but for authorization that put the president in stronger position to negotiate with Iraq. I'll give them that.

What gets me, though, is the WH response to the IWR conditions and congress's lack of oversight. As John Dean suggested in Worse than Watergate, the written WH submittal to congress regarding satisfaction of conditions was a charade and it was irresponsible of congress to let it pass and never mention it again. This was the start of mysterious congressional dem passiveness that only ended yesterday.

Thank you for adding to the light being shed on administration and MSM misdeeds.

[wiggs]

122. Nathan Gardels makes similar point today

From Huffingtonpost.com, Gardels outlines additional reasons why it is important not to frame WMD issue as simply whether or not they existed:


The Imminent Debate on Pre-War Intelligence

snip

But that was not the issue. What the Cheney cabal's forward-leaning spin was selling was "imminent danger" of WMD use, not their past or potential existence. Many, including UN arms inspectors, believed Saddam still had the capacity to reinvigorate WMD programs shut down after the first Gulf War and would do so if given the chance. Indeed, Iraqi scientist Mahdi Obeidi has since confirmed to me and others that he had hidden a prototype centrifuge for uranium enrichment in his back yard so the nuclear effort could later be revived. However, after more than a decade of inspections and sanctions, Saddam had been effectively defanged and contained as a threat beyond his borders.

snip

As the debate reopens about the lead up to the Iraqi war, it would be a big mistake to let the White House and its allies frame the issue as "faulty intelligence" in which the whole world believed -- the "we were all wrong" argument that relieves anyone of responsibility for this whole calamity.


The issue must remain focused on the campaign, including media manipulation, to convince public opinion that Saddam was not just a really bad guy who killed, torutured and oppressed his own people, but that he was about to pounce out of his box and get you too. Without creating a sense of imminent threat, the Cheney cabal knew there could be no war.

more at www.huffingtonpost.com/nathan-gardels/the-imminent-debate-on-pr_b_10071.html

My original premise, that IWR condition #1 has to do with IMMINENT threat is not quite correct....as I remember now it had to do with finding that going to war is the last and only resort...that peaceful means had been exhausted.

[LynzM]

65. Hey Will, questions for you?

I thought Boxer voted against the IWR?

Also, and I could be totally wrong, so please tell me if I am, I though that the IWR only gave permission for Bush to use that as a last resort, not as a vote to actually *go* to war. So perhaps part of this issue was a matter of having too much trust in the leadership to actually examine all of the evidence truthfully?

[WilliamPitt]

67. If you look up-thread

you'll see I was corrected on the Boxer thing, but missed the edit deadline to fix it here. The fix will be in the final.

As for your second point, you could be right. I am going to revisit the essay and flesh out the possibility.

[LynzM]

70. Ok, cool, thanks for the reply

I just remembered because I saw her mention it on TDS last night :)

I don't mean to imply that they are innocent of the vote, by any means. I just think that in that situation, it was certainly possible to believe, as many did, that the President wouldn't take the country into an unnecessary, and un'winnable', war. Of course, I've yet to actually hear anyone come out and say that they voted for it because they trusted Bush, and that was their actual error...

Good article, where is the final going? Beyond DU?

[Emit]

71. While you're revisiting your essay

You might want to revisit the IWR text again (not that you need to, just driving home the excellent points you are making). Unf%-*'nbelievable that anyone of them could've voted for this thing, IMHO! Yes, it was to give authorization, and perhaps many didn't think he'd actually do it, or do it as quickly as he did, but nevertheless, the IWR contains blatant hyperbole and lies.

http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m6C9MC-f0AUJ:www.yourcongress.com/ViewArticle.asp%3Farticle_id%3D2686+Iraq+War+Resolution&hl=en

~snip~
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;

~snip~

Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq; 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 current 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;

~snip~

[il_lilac]

84. wow, I haven't read that in a long time

ALL of their lies are right there in black and white!

[Emit]

68. Yes, she voted 'no'

I checked. Here's a link to those who voted for and against the IWR:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/onpolitics/transcripts/senaterollcall_iraq101002.htm

[hfojvt]

72. Now there is the William Pitt that I missed

:headbang:

I do remember a couple other things. One was that the Senate bill forced Bush to goto the UN before he proceeded. This was a concession forced by Democrats and it slowed the march to war. Speaking of "march to war" that was how CBS news began its broadcasts for about a six month period, helping to make the decision look like a done deal, just a matter of time.

Second, there was the UN resolution, unanimously approved, even by Syria. Why was it unanimous? Because our UN representative assured them that this resolution did NOT authorize a war, that a war would not be started without another resolution. Another lie.

I cannot totally blame the Democrats either. Given the media climate at the time, a vote against would require alot of explanation for Johnson (who barely won), Daschle (who lost), and Carnahan (who lost). Even Cleland was painted as a traitor/terrorist symp (and lost?) Miller, apparently left the party in 2003, and Kohl and Rockefeller have long been DINOs. They can be blamed, but they will neither change, nor be defeated in a primary.

[demobabe]

73. Feh.

Democrats voting for an issue so they could remain in office despite better judgment?

Gee, that's never happened before. How could this be? :eyes:

We ARE the minority party. We ARE already SORRY - we don't need to be more sorry by apologizing.

What's done is done (re: vote for war), but all that matters now is the actions going forward. We need to support Reid and co. and keep focusing on positive directions.

We'll send them all to counseling later where they can acknowledge what they've done, take responsibility, and make amends where they need.

[robertpaulsen]

77. Tough love is necessary sometimes. Brilliant writing, Will!

To paraphrase what you wrote, this threesome does indeed have blood on their hands. How wonderful it would be for the Dems responsible to be the first to apologize. We should all do what we can to encourage this.

[Ganja Ninja]

78. I can't find the exact quote from Hilliary Clinton made before ...

the IWR but it went something like this. "I would hate to think that a President would take this country to war for reasons that were not legitimate."
At the time it struck me that she was basically daring them to go to war and prove their lies. I think that's what a lot of Democrats that voted for the resolution were doing because they couldn't disprove the lies or weren't willing to bet that Saddam was clean. Face it, if they had found WMD's and the Democrats had voted in lock step against the IWR they would have looked pretty bad.

[ROH]

81. Recommended (n/t)

[realFedUp]

89. Reads like an introduction to a book

Someone's gotta write it.

[mike6640]

91. Re-Release "War on Iraq"

With this article as a foreword. It may need a few extra chapters to bring it up to date......

M

[Roland99]

90. 96 U.S. Soldiers killed in Oct.

http://icasualties.org

[bleever]

92. Will, I look forward to seeing you write about Cheney's Energy Task

Force and how it was part of the substructure of the plan for war.

Let me know if I've missed anything detailed you've written about this, but I'm guessing that given the lack of info, you haven't gone into it too far yet.

[tlsmith1963]

94. I'm Glad You Made This Point...

...that bin Laden & Hussein were never friends. I knew about that before the Iraq War even started. There were reports in the news about the fact that bin Laden & Hussein were on opposite sides. There were warnings that if Hussein were removed from power, it would bring the bin Laden supporters to power in Iraq. Too bad that Bush & the others didn't pay attention. They were so blinded by greed & revenge (for what Hussein tried to do to GWB's father) that they screwed up, big time. And now we have to deal with the awful result.

Tammy

[NewJeffCT]

96. thanks for the article, as always

recommended.

[Iowa]

97. Thank you WilliamPitt! Excellent post!

[skinner_7]

98. Not to mention

They say that there is no account for how many Iraqi civilians were killed, what about the women that were raped, children left orphaned, and those without homes....that's a tragedy in itself. :(

[Gronk Groks]

99. Brilliantly written but...

...is now the time to release it??? The Dems have (finally) got into the fight with the new leadership they acquired after the 2004 election. If we kick the feet out from under them right now, the house of shrub may survive.

Timing is important. If we pressure shrub into resigning and if we can take back the house and/or senate (with Diebold controlling the voting booths), then it would be time to release this.

Yes some Dems chickened out because of political expediency. Some were honestly duped. Some earned honor by holding to the truth.

But the only rethug who objected was Chafee of Rhode Island. In the ultimate balance that has got to make a difference.

[proud patriot]

100. Well said

:toast:

[KnaveRupe]

101. The Dems who voted for the war WERE duped, but...

...their sin was in ALLOWING themselves to be duped. That, I think is the frame that reconciles your piece with the opinion of Mzmolly upthread.

At least, that's how it appears to me - we all agree that the Dem motives (and, let's be honest, many Republican Congresscritters' motives) in going along with this war are certainly less sinister than the PNAC/neocon motives for STARTING this war.

But I think you are right, Will, that the nation is owed an apology. Being duped is not a sin, and there is no need to apologize for an honest mistake. But allowing oneself to be duped, for whatever reason, when one SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER? That's what the Dems need to apologize to us for. We counted on them, and they let us down.

If the Democrats who voted for this war came forward and asked for our forgiveness for that, I think they would see their numbers skyrocket. It's the difference between making excuses (a la Bush) and taking responsibility. Congressional Democrats need to claim that mantle - the party of responsibility - by their actions. Stepping up to the plate, acknowledging that they should have been more vigilant, acknowledging why they weren't vigilant enough, and vowing to never fail us again - these are the actions that will absolve them of the evil that has been perpetrated in all of our names.

Overall, an excellent piece. I can't wait to see the final version. Kudos.

[eridani]

102. They weren't duped at all, not in the slightest

However, they do happen to know the voting population better than we do. About a third of us are borderline sociopaths and relentless cheerleaders for mass murder.

Among the Kwakiutl it did not matter whether a relative had died in bed of disease, or by the hand of an enemy; in either case death was an affront to be wiped out by the death of another person. A chief's sister and her daughter had gone up to Victoria and because their boat had capsized they never came back. Immediately the tribe set up the war pole to announce their intention of wiping out the injury, and gathered a war party. They set out and found seven men and two children asleep and killed them. Then they felt good when they arrived at Sebaa in the evening.

This is from Ruth Benedict's Anthropology and the Abnormal, although you have to wonder what planet she is from if she thinks that the attitude that it's perfectly OK to avenge our suffering on people who had no part in causing it is in any way abnormal. The only thing abnormal about the Kwakiutl is that they are in your face honest about their base, amoral emotions, as opposed to the rest of our species-- which happens to be the biggest collection of bullshitters within 30,000 lightyears of galactic central point.

Kerry and others knew perfectly well that a big fraction of the people they needed to have voting for them wanted to see explosions and piles of maimed and dead bodies just for revenge, and it didn't matter at all who the dead were. They knew damned well that there was no threat, but also that if the war succeeded (by which I mean that the Iraqis had grudgingly tolerated the occupation and not caused very many extra US casualties), they would look silly by having opposed an obvious success. They probably also suspected that the Psychopath in Chief might have planted WMD and gotten by with the fakery, again making them look silly.

These purely political risks were real, and it takes politicians solidly grounded in real ethics (Kucinich, et al) to oppose such a course of action simply because it is wrong.

[Tesla]

105. In the End, when all is said and done.......

How many people,involved or uninvolved, but knew and didn't say , will write a book about it??

I can't wait!!!



I'm buying your book NOW,Mr. Pitt!!

I LOVE DU!!!!!

[Window]

104. Kick.

Excellent compilation, as usual Will Pitt. Thank you for sharing.





Peace

[Francine Frensky]

106. It would have wiped out the democratic party if there had been wmds

It's easy for you, a non-elected person, to say "this never smelled right, the dems should have known"

For someone who has to go through an election every 2-6 years, the stakes are higher. Much higher. Their livlihood depends on people voting for them, and nobody votes for someone who is dead wrong (except republicans who are brainwashed). In the climate in 2002, democrats would literally have been wiped out, decimated, if wmds had been found after dems voted no.

You're thinking on this is linear; they have to also consider the prevailing mood among voters.

[primative1]

109. I have to toss a lifeline to JFK here ...

In 2002/3 how many of us actualy belived that the WHOLE Bush Iraq story was a lie. I even believed parts of it had to be true. Our Senators never got to see the actual inteligence. They only got to see the condensed homoginized versions that the Bush administration fed them. If even parts of the story were true then our senators would have been jeaprodizing the nation to vote against possible action. BushCo was SO insistant that delay would be a fatal flaw.
Even when you think your expectations are the lowest they can be, BushCo has managed to deliver less, but in '03 the concept that they would create an entire fabric of lies to start a war because they wanted to was fairly unthinkable. Now we know better.

[Iowa]

120. I question the premise of your argument...

that it would have "wiped out the democratic party if there had been wmds." If that is so, the reverse should also be true - that it would wipe out the Republican party if there were NO wmds - imagine the specter of invading a small country under false pretenses, killing thousands of US soldiers over a lie, etc. Unthinkable! Yet it actually did occur and the Republican party is still alive and kicking.

Ultimately it comes down to this: There are lines one simply does not cross to protect one's "livelihood". Some people willingly place themselves in harms way, and some even die for the sake of others. And some willingly send young soldiers off to be killed - to protect their cushy jobs and win elections. The latter deserve all the derision they receive. There is no excuse for crossing that line. Sometimes you just do the right thing - and let the chips fall where they may. This was one of those times.

[mike_c]

112. BRAVO!

Truth to power!

[sinkingfeeling]

113. Will, you need a correction in the 4th. paragraph...

"As of Wednesday morning, 2,032 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. 95 died in the month of September alone."

Didn't you mean October?

[elehhhhna]

114. Will, EDIT, 4th paragraph--

Don't you mean 95 died in October?

[formercia]

117. "Lies work" G.H.W.Bush 1992

How can anyone believe what comes from the mouths of a family of pathological liars. These clowns graduated from the P. T. Barnum school of political ethics.

Anyone who would take anything they say at face values deserves the consequences.

[rmgustaf]

118. Great post - but be careful!

Or the morans will come after you...

[WilliamPitt]

119. LINK TO REVISED FINAL

Thanks, everyone.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110305I.shtml

[Name removed]

123. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.