OC Weekly: Couldn't the Democrats foresee the folly of Bush's war?

[question everything]

From http://www.ocweekly.com/ink/06/13/diary-lowery.php and scroll down to Monday, Nov. 28

Weekly editor Will Swaim gets really pissed off over the weekend:

“Democrats who voted for an October 2002 resolution giving George W. Bush the right to invade Iraq now like to say Bush misled them—exaggerated the Iraqi threat; underestimated U.S. troop requirements sufficient to keep the peace; failed to understand that Iraqis, even those who were critics of Hussein, might resist a U.S. occupation. ‘New information,’ these Democrats say, has persuaded them that Bush withheld critical intelligence. Typical is California Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who in twisted syntax says, ‘I would not have voted if I knew what I knew now.’ Bullshit. That Bush lied to Congress is absolutely clear. That Democrats could have discovered the truth anyhow is just as clear. I know that because we did. In Orange County alone, every major newspaper—Los Angeles Times, Orange County Register, OC Weekly, Orange County Business Journal—editorialized against an invasion of Iraq. If mere reporters, writers and editors in provincial America could foresee the folly of Bush’s war, why couldn’t Democrats in the nation’s capital? How could Democrats not know what even OC Weekly staffers knew in the winter of 2003—that Bush’s war would be a disaster? That year, in our Feb. 28 issue, we reported, among other facts, that: the CIA had already discounted any evidence of a connection between Iraq and al-Qaida; the U.S. occupation would depend on American reservists who serve stateside as cops, firemen, paramedics and other first-responders—men and women who keep us safe at home; retired Marine Corps General Anthony Zinni, former chief of U.S. Central Command, had predicted a civil war following a U.S. invasion of Iraq; and claims that Iraq had chemical and biological weapons were based on old and unreliable intelligence. Much of American culture is mercurial—quick-changing, forgetful, shiny, meaningless; and a lot has happened in the three years since Congress abandoned its responsibility to lead—the Scott Peterson and Michael Jackson trials, Britney Spears’ two weddings, each and every episode of The O.C. But we can’t forget the noisy season before Bush let loose the dogs of war. We remember articulate Americans laying out detailed critiques of the war and its almost inevitable aftermath—think back to former Iraq weapons inspector Scott Ritter, the man whose anti-war speaking schedule Slate magazine called ‘breathtaking’? All of the ‘new information’ was available then. We heard it. And if punks at OC Weekly—along with our counterparts in the county’s other major papers—could synthesize all this and see a disaster coming, why couldn’t the Democrats in Washington, D.C.?”

[FloridaPat]

1. One of my questions: how could they think Iraq would be different

than Afghanistan. That was a mess then and is worse now. Iraq has turned out like Afghanistan, but even worse.

And * lied about everything since he was in office. And the first Gulf War took 6 months of talk before the invasion. This took 6 weeks.

[Cha]

2. How about the ones who

didn't vote for the IWR? Where are they and why aren't they being lauded with Props and Kudos?

[question everything]

4. One of them died shortly after the vote: Paul Wellstone (nt)

[Cha]

6. That's right..what a sad

time that was in my American history.

[Canuckistanian]

3. I've been asking myself this question, like, forever

I knew this war was bogus simply by paying attention to what's actually happening, and not just by listening to the news media.

I swear, each Democratic Rep or Senator should employ one person whose job it is to spot each and every lie by doing research. Scan the blogs. Read the dissenting articles in the fringe organizations. Talk to the people with first-hand knowledge.

If I can find out the truth, a lowly Canadian 100 miles into the interior of the polar wasteland, why can't politicians?

What do they pay all these assistants for?

[stray cat]

5. They assumed a certain measure of competence

Kind of like assuming the Fed Government wouldn't let people die for days without responding after a hurricane

[pretzel4gore]

8. again, bush wasn't elected in 2k...

all this stuff about iraq just says the real story hasn't even been mentioned yet- that an illegal power grab took place leading up to and including 2k election, and while the system tries to absorb that, the power grabbers get entire system in hot water to dstract said system from the original power grab....the dems know damn well that bush isn't legal, but they fear the busheviks, they fear massive lockdown of the usa (though they must know that not really be practical) mostly they fear bloodshed, when the bridge to america of old is destroyed; they fear rebellion, revolution, the rule of the mob (which is already totally provoked by mass media, that element that pays attention)

[FrenchieCat]

7. They knew it was trumped up.....

but maybe they just didn't know how badly Bush would actually fuck up.

At the time, many were fearful that if they did the "unpopular" thing, they would no longer have jobs.

They knew that it was a political campaign product....as Rove told all of us in his August Memo.

Wes Clark certainly testified to both houses of congress that this War would have many ill advised consequences.....as the Late Paul Wellstone clearly stated during his speech against voting for the IWR...

"But as General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida."
http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

Re-read Paul Wellstone's entire statement at that link.....and you will see most had to have clearly known that we were gonna be opening up a Pandora's Box, a term that Clark aptly applied to this misadventure. They just thought we had the power to control and contain it......but that is where those voting Aye....were tragically wrong.

[fed-up]

9. So their jobs are more important than our soldiers/Iraqi's lives????

All they had to do was read "Unfortunate Son" back in 2000 to realize Bush wasn't capable of doing ANYTHING right and that he is a lying sack of ****. Giving him absolute power was the absolute WORSTEST thing they could have done.

War and politics are NOT popularity contests when there are lives at stake.

They voted with their wallets and said be damned to their constituents.

F*** em all.

Just a little rant here as I just came from reading the stats on returning vets and PTSD.

[karynnj]

10. What they knew in the winter of 03 didn't help with their Oct 02 vote

Kerry spoke out in winter 2003 (Speech at Georgetown University) against the war and even called for regime change here after Bush invaded.

What's strange is he includes both dates - but ignores that much of the information against the war was gathered once the inspectors were in which was after the vote.

In the winter of 2006, they will know all the winning combinations of the October, 2005 lotteries - so why if they knew this, did they choose other numbers?

This is not rocket science!