"if I had known then what I know now" I am so DAMNED sick and tired of hearing this from ANY of our

[niyad]

elected officials.

Just about every single one of us here, and anybody who had access to the net, and who wasn't listening exclusively to the msm, KNEW that each and every justification the murderous thugs of this maladministration used was a blatant LIE. we KNEW saddam had nothing to do with 9/11, didn't have wmd's, and that the stupid yellowcake story was a complete fabrication. we KNEW it was all fear-mongering and posturing, and that this was really about OIL. we KNEW the PNAC plans for iraq, KNEW that this had been in the works since the early 90's.

So how is it that almost none of our elected officials, who, presumably, have at least the same access to information that we do, and, one hopes, a lot more, DIDN'T know?

Sorry, but I am not buying that from any of the elected officials, especially the ones who desire to be the next president. I want people who are smarter than those who believed bush's lies. surely, that isn't too much to ask, especially since the next president, whoever that is going to be, is going to be faced with trying to repair the catastrophic damages done by the thugs currently in power.

Parlo game question--without regard to ANY sort of party affiliation, ANY sort of political experience in elected office, if you could have ANYONE in the oval office, who would it be, and why? oh, and while you are at it, fill out the cabinet posts as well.

[illinoisprogressive]

1. I remember not buying it really early (it was that sick thud in my stomach)

And the fact that people like Feingold, Kennedy and Durbin did not buy either shows some of them bothered to check around and read and talk to people and do some serious thinking. The fact that they did not play follow the leader and made their own stand, though unpopular, makes me respect them so much.

[blm]

2. People with a sense of current history also believed the dictatortot would listen to his

father, to Brent Scowcroft, Colin Powell and James Baker - all evil beings, but still with the sense that it's OK to rattle some sabers and get weapon inspectors in and ramp up diplomatic efforts to get Saddam out (they knew Saddam would go with the right pressure - he was one of their proteges) the actual INVASION of Iraq wouldn't be a done deal.

I admit that I always believed Bush2 would be under the complete control of Bush1 and his gang. When they all came out AGAINST military action, I thought there was a really great chance it wouldn't happen.

[Edith Ann]

3. If I'd known.....?

Anyone knows if you invade someone's home they will fight back. That's about all one needs to know? I watched Bill Moyers show on Iran Contra. This seems like the same deal to me. Why do people keep electing these thieves? Oliver North admitted he broke the law and that he'd do it again. Anyone remember why he's not in jail?

[illinoisprogressive]

4. Your post made me think of something: My mom grew up in France during

the Nazi invasion. My grandfather was a police captain and was a member of the underground. she thinks he passed information on to the operatives. She remembers her parents talking late at night about escape plans in case he was found out.
the point is: You invade and the people will fight back. My grandfather would be called an insurgent today.

[pocoloco]

5. You are preaching to the choir!

But don't stop!

The alternative is future life/death votes and decisions based on politics and not morals.

Political futures be damned. There was only one way to vote!

[Pepperbelly]

6. I was uncertain at the time and ...

defy you to demonstrate that, considering the risks, as described by our intelligence community, it would have been prudent, in 02, to gamble that the risks were nonexistent. I was suspicious of bush, et al, but believing it might be bogus is far different than knowing it and at times, the anybody had was a guess, no matter how vociferously you might have believed it.

[mike_c]

7. the intel community knew there were no "risks" to America...

...as did anyone else who was paying attention. I'm sorry, I won't do your research for you-- this topic has been beaten to death on DU and elsewhere. Look at some of the web sites that were documenting the effects of the embargo and the bombings during the late 90s and early 2000s. There was virtually no "risk" that Iraq was a threat to anyone, which events have utterly proven true. How on earth can you argue otherwise? Do you still expect that there are nuclear ballistic missiles buried out in the desert?

Even if Iraq were belligerent and in possession of the arms that it DID NOT have, what threat would they have been to America? What if Iraq had all those tons of VX and anthrax that Colin Powell made up out of whole cloth? Would they have been a threat to America worthy of starting a war of aggression over?

No.

There simply is no defense for the war against Iraq.

Events have shown us what is true and what wasn't. Rather than "defying" others to prove why this illegal war should have been opposed, I defy you to show why it shouldn't have been condemned by everyone in congress from the very beginning.

[driver8]

8. I'm sorry -- if you didn't know that this war was brought on by lies and that

the neocons had been planning this war since before junior took office, you weren't paying attention.

As was said before, there was plenty of information on DU and the web.

When the Sec. of Defense says he wants to bomb Iraq instead of Afghanistan because "they have better targets", that should tell you something right there.

Also, the PNAC sent Clinton a letter trying to convince him to attack Iraq. Most of the people who signed that letter were pushing for this war. Clinton wouldn't do it, but pissypants sure would.

[Pepperbelly]

18. big difference between

believing and knowing. Perhaps a review might be in order.

There is also a huge difference between actually having the responsibility and back benching from the web.

[driver8]

24. Of course there is a difference...

I didn't realize that's what we were talking about.

I think I would have relied on more information than from a source named "Curveball" before I sent our troops into harm's way.

That's just me, though. I'm not the president -- so what do I know?

[TankLV]

12. There were no trucks, bombs, etc as evidenced by the CARTOONS

powell et all presented as gospel - the moment they pulled that I knew they were bullshitting us - we had the capabilities of seeing a pimiple on a nats ass back in 1960 with President Kennedy.

And that's just the FIRST lie...

The "...I know they're around Tikrit blah blah blah..." was another...

these are not simply misstatements or somebody elses wrong information - they said THEY KNEW!

I knew different.

I hate people who try to re-write history like YOU are attempting to do! NONE of the intelligence communities said any such thing as you are trying to claim - they all in fact said the OPPOSITE - that is the only new information we are finding out all the time that comes out in drips and drabs...

What YOU are attempting to spew is proven BULLSHIT too...

[Pepperbelly]

19. perhaps it is you ...

who are re-writing history. I pay as much attention as anyone and i know, with what was circulating at the time, that i would've been hard pressed to make a call that i would've been confident in and that was without having cia shoving 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and paragraphs on the back of each one in you face insisting that the sky was falling. perhaps you just have an easier time in being confident in judgment calls. i leave it to you to decide whether that is a good or bad thing.

[Clark2008]

13. I've missed seeing your posts.

Have you been away or have I just not been in the same thread as you?

How are you?

[niyad]

14. and I defy YOU to show the intel that states what you just stated it claimed. tell me something--

we knew, within hours after the towers were hit, that 15 of the hijackers carried saudi passports, 1 egyptian, 1 from yemen and, I believe, 2 pakistanis. now, given THAT intel, wouldn't the LOGICAL target have been saudi arabia.

and by the way, did you know that saddam's military budget was approximately 2 DAYS of the pentagon budget? and the countries around him did not consider him a threat. with the 24/78 flyovers, the man couldn't have ordered a pizza without us knowing about it.

I don't know what you were listening to, or reading, but it clearly wasn't what the rest of us were. do be a good person and read the PNAC letter of 1998 to President Clinton, demanding that he invade iraq. or look at the plans that have been in existence since the end of Gulf 1.

as another poster said, we are not going to do your research for you, but, for clarity's sake, don't let the reichwing do it, either.

[Pepperbelly]

21. please ...

cut and paste for me the claims I actually made rather than whatever it is that you arguing with. perhaps you should take a breath before getting so excited.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

15. It would'n't have been prudent.....

As late as 2001, POWELL and RICE were assuring the world community that Iraq was successfully contained and posed no threat to us or even its neighbors. Not to mention the fact that Iraq's military had been crushed at the end of GW1 and the country had endured 10+ years of crippling sanctions and UN weapons inspections. SH was still in power but severely weakened by GW1. Iraq was unable to even control their own airspace. Although SH threw out the weapons inspectors in 1998, the prospect of Iraq maintaining and/or further developing WMDs with the capacity to threaten us or our allies seemed farfetched to me and should have to (most of) our elected leaders.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

17. Pepperbear, is that you?

Sorry, but if you were on DU at the time -- you knew it was bullshit.

[TankLV]

9. We should count our blessings. All the discussions are WHEN we should leave, not even IF...

That's an amazing turnaround to me...

Sorry, I can't be as hard and perfect as you seem to be...

but I can understand how you feel - because I knew from the instant the LIES left their lips that they were LIES, and logged on that day to get back up information to confirm my own thoughts...

[gratuitous]

10. I'm just a guy with a dial-up modem

And I could see that the only people allowed on the air were wearing cheerleader outfits and waving pom-poms for the "Let's* go to war" crowd. Scott Ritter and other responsible voices of people who knew what they were talking about weren't allowed anywhere near a live microphone. While the popular media were salivating over Powell's Prevaricating Power Point Presentation, acting as if drawings were evidence, I knew from reading other sources that it was a pack of lies. I marched in the streets with millions of other people, and for our trouble, we got called hippies and traitors, naive and worse by the major media, our hometown papers, and know-nothing jock-sniffers.

Yeah, the "If I knew then" nonsense just doesn't fly with me. Fortunately, I haven't heard it very much from elected officials for a while.

*Well, "let's" not in the sense of "us," but really rather someone else, because war is kind of icky, but boy, won't them be some purty pitchers on the teevee.

[Clark2008]

11. How come two of these sorts of politicians are currently the

front runners for the Democratic nomination?

It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

[sendero]

16. I agree..

... if you didn't know then, you are either a moron or you didn't want to know.

Fact is, we all know why so many Dems assisted the Bush administration into Iraq, and it had nothing to do with what they "knew".

[AtomicKitten]

20. I agree.

[harveyc]

22. I guess you were smarter than ...

the Congress in 1998 that passed the Iraq Liberation Act. Good reading btw.

Your point is well taken though, especially since many of these same people have voted to fund the Iraq war.

[SaveElmer]

23. Their complaint is accurate...whether you are sick of hearing it...

Or not...!!!