Who else here knew going into Iraq was going to be a HUGE mistake?

[devilgrrl]

I know this question has been asked before but I thought I'd bring it up again now that the likes of Richard Pearle, etc. are lamenting the decision.

Personally, I knew that going into Iraq was going to be a complete disaster before it even happened. I didn't feel that way about Afghanistan initially because I was hoping that something good would have come out of it. Unfortunately, I don't feel that way anymore - the Bush Crime Family only made that situation even worse than it already was too.

So, who else - more or less - felt the same way?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. oohhh oohhh oohhhh oohhh oohhhh

I did Mr. Kotter!

[Sequoia]

8. Ha! I liked that dude!

[TahitiNut]

2. Me and 50,000 others who marched in San Francisco in September 2002.

It was a no-brainer. :shrug:

[StrictlyRockers]

49. Raises hand. Marched to Civic Center in SF several times, before and after invasion.

No brainer.

Has not gotten as bad as I expected, but then they still have two years, or as long as it takes to conclude impeachment procedings.

[MetaTrope]

3. I'd watched Bush slavering for a war right from the 2000 election...

Trashing international arms treaties left and right. I knew on 9/11 that he'd been given his free pass to start the invasions, and of course, I knew that they'd only provide a breeding ground for terrorists.

[cynatnite]

4. I told everyone I knew...

There were times I had doubts because of the fear factor game bush and his minions played, but remember specifically telling them our troops would become targets, a civil war was a real possibility and that this could destabilize the region. We would get mired down.

I really do wish I was wrong.

[Sequoia]

5. I did and wrote Senator Feinstein to please not agree to go to war.

But of course she did.

[Cha]

25. WE did the same with hillary and

schumer. Evidently they didn't know.

[Sequoia]

48. "You're either with us or with the terroristiz"

[Cha]

62. I guess they sooooooooo bought

into that.

[karlrschneider]

6. What, you want like 50,000 replies?

:eyes:
:D

[devilgrrl]

14. Yes. 50,000 replies works for me. :-)

:silly:

[Richard Steele]

50. Well, I think this is a FINE way to get them! We ALL knew. nm

[librechik]

7. it was so obvious an 8 year old would know

unfortunately Junior has the IQ & maturity of a 4 year old, so it went right over his head.

[dogman]

9. Jerry Springer explained it well.

As a guest before the invasion he stated there were three likely outcomes. 1)If Iraq had WMDs, they would use them on our troops. 2)If they did not use them, they could supply them to actual terrorists. 3)They did not have them and we would increase the terrorist base.
It seems Jerry was something bushco was not, honest.

[GainesT1958]

10. From the day it became clear...

That he was going into Iraq come hell or high water, I had this incredible sickening feeling that it would be a disaster for us...and ultimately, for Iraq as well.

B-)

[kysrsoze]

64. My friend and I knew as soon as the election was over they'd start pushing

and we both knew they'd totally f*ck it up.

[Jamastiene]

11. Well, duh.

I think many of us felt the same way. Problem is, no one would listen to the voice of reason in that case.

[Vincardog]

12. Duuuh I did

[cmd]

13. That would be me, the shy person who spoke at a peace rally on 2/15

I never thought I could do something like that.

[devilgrrl]

15. Quit saying Duh! Lot of people bought the propaganda...

some, I'm sure, have signed on to DU since.

You don't have to be snarky with me.

[whistle]

16. Ahaaa, everyone except those who listened to Dimson

[Cha]

17. Are you kidding? Most DUers knew

cause we had the information at our fingertips that provided HUGE Clues to come to no other conclusion. My sister and I went to NYC and Protest Rallied for 7 hours in 20 degree weather on Feb 15, 2003 with the Millions around the World who Said NO to War On Iraq.

It didn't take a crystal ball just the truth of what the bushits were made of.

[devilgrrl]

21. No, I am not kidding...

Of course most people here knew it was bullshit from the get-go. Just thought I'd start a thread for our lurking trolls who bought it hook, line and sinker.....

HA! SUCKERS!

[InternalDialogue]

18. My birthday is in February, along with those of my niece and sister-in-law.

My parents (conservatives) had all three of us plus immediate family over for a celebration dinner in 2003, the month before we invaded. While Mom was cooking in the kitchen, I sat at the counter and talked with her. Without getting too demonstrative or detailed, I just told her, "Mom, before anything happens, I just want to say it out loud that if we invade Iraq, I will be living with the consequences until the day I die, and likely my children will as well. It will go down in the history books as the biggest foreign policy mistake our country ever made."

And I left it at that. I know she remembers it, because I've brought up my statement since then, but I don't know if she yet buys into the truth.

[Dr Fate]

19. Anyone who had a computer and an ounce of objectivity knew.

Everyone else, DEM or Repub, was just kising Bush/media ass and hoping for the best.

[smartvoter]

20. Yes. I angered many when I said "WTF?" over this one. nt

[movonne]

22. I did...I knew it was a lie. That also makes me wonder about our

congressmen and senators...how smart are they, here we could figure it out why didn't they and they had more info than we did...

[John Q. Citizen]

23. I knew it was a disaster in the making. Scott Ridder nailed it and I believed

him.

They had no planning for post invasion, they pulled the UN inspectors before they were through, and they cooked the intelligence.

They also abandened any hope of a stable Afghanistan in going into iraq.

Of course this is what the Neocons wanted to do. They are into destruction and chaos, not creativity and stability.

[Exiled in America]

24. Right here!

[laundry_queen]

26. I knew.

Months before the invasion...I knew, but being a Canadian, I had access to a free press. Before then, I was not very interested in U.S. politics. But as the drumbeat to war got louder and louder, starting in the fall of 2002, I started searching for information on the web, because I KNEW going into Iraq, first of all, was not justified at all, and second of all, would be a huge disaster, would destabilize the region and would drag on and on. The only thing I was hopeful about was that maybe they'd go in quick, and then pull out as soon as Saddam was out of power and it would be over quickly. Sadly, they weren't even THAT smart.
I remember telling EVERYONE I knew.
No one believed me, they all thought I was nuts.
And yes, I'm not quiet about saying, "I told you so." although I wish I didn't have to say it.
At least I found this place because of it.

[blue cat]

27. Me

I cried during shock and awe because I was afraid that I would die and never see peace again. I am 42 you.

[wryter2000]

43. I lost it when I heard they were going to use shock and awe.

I practically screamed, "They're going to do that?" and I started bawling. How can you bomb the hell out of a city that's never attacked you? Even if they did have WMDs and were a threat, the civilian population didn't deserve that.

Even one of the idiot "middle of the road" talk show hosts here said, "I don't care what happens to Tariq Aziz, but I care what happens to his neighbor."

[ourbluenation]

28. Me

[NNN0LHI]

29. I knew invading Afghanistan and Iraq were BIG mistakes

My posts before the lead up to both invasions are archived around here somewhere and will confirm that.

Don

[hankthecrank]

30. How about view from the other side Bush's old man knew better

Don't like Bush the elder any more than the son. Bush the elder knew better than going into Iraq during the first gulf war.

[zeemike]

31. Yes I knew

And so did many others that I talked to at the time.
I can remember telling one woman that had a son in the Navy who was about to get out that I had a feeling that this was going to be a manor disaster, and she agreed with me.

[Donna Zen]

32. A totally flawed concept

Going into a Muslim country to blow it up, could only end one way: in the forever war. I couldn't believe that anyone with the slightest clue about foreign policy could support this horrible idea. I first saw this idea suggested on a thread at Salon's Table Talk...before bush was inaugurated. Before. Someone had started a thread: Where will bush start his first war? While plenty of people wrote "Iraq" I held that the idea was so stupid that the first war would be in South America. I was wrong.

Later in March of 2002 on a different forum, we began to track bush's war roll-out. The title of the thread was "The Forever War."

We were not foreign policy experts. We were people who read and use our brains.

So "yes" I knew, and so did many others. And I knew after helping with the fact-checking on Will Pitt's book, that there was NO imminent threat from Saddam.

My emotional reaction to this war fluctuates between rage and despair.

[oblivious]

33. To be honest, I didn't think the US and UK would lose this badly.

I didn't imagine even the worst case scenario would be this tragic for all concerned.

[The Count]

34. Facts were readily available for anyone willing to look. Clark's testimony

to Congress, the blatant lies on WMD (aluminum tubes, yellow cake) - one didn't need to be a rocket scientist to figure it out.

[malaise]

35. I called it Vietnam Version 2 before

Bush and Blair invaded. I attended all the anti-war protests where I live.

[ChiciB1]

36. ME! ME! ME! Way Back Before 2000. The Crap Was Out There

before that election and I recall talking to sooooooo many people about this. NO BODY even paid any attention to me. I printed out articles and everything, but they thought I was NUTS!!

NOT!

[Cleita]

37. Millions of people here in the USA and around the world

knew it was a big mistake before we went into Iraq as evidenced by the massive protests before the war, which our press and our government hardly acknowledged. It was then that we knew that this neo-con brand of politicians weren't interested in the will of the people as a true democracy should be.

[wryter2000]

38. Everyone here knew

Including me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. The Bush administration.

"And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq."

-Dick Cheney, 1992

[robbedvoter]

40. "F..Saddam, he's going down" W was heard screaming way before

9/11 - and they did bomb him in W's first month in power. Condi announced plans for Iraq in january 2001 - BEFORE the Coronation, and W alluded to this in his debate with Gore.
Anyone who heard of PNAC , their attempts to push Clinton to do same, Clinton's resistance had to know it was a BFEE plan, therefore a disaster. The fact that W wanted to show Poppy off didn't make it any more rational.

[Libby2]

41. My family knew it. n/t

[bridgit]

42. me, if for no other reason than everything bush touches turns to shit...

[LeftCoast]

44. Raises hand! Me.

There were several million of us trying to make our voices heard in the run up to the war. Bush called us a 'focus group'. :grr:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

45. I KNEW it was going to be a huge mistake...........*sigh*

[deutsey]

46. I was anti-war when anti-war wasn't cool

[yorkiemommie1]

47. Only most everybody at my work

just plain ordinary people without blinders on.

[0rganism]

51. yep, I knew Iraq was a disaster from the day W started sabre-rattling

I also had some hopes for Afghanistan, but I knew damn well that once the focus shifted to Iraq any chance of success in Afghanistan was out the window.

[jab105]

52. MEE MEE MEE MEE MEE!!!!

I remember calling into the local radio and saying...

I can probably find the exact thing I wrote out on my computer if I look for it...
It was a 30 second "rant" contest, and I "won"...

I talked about how sanctions had weakened Iraq, and they didn't have anything that could harm us, and of course, I talked about the Sunnis, Shiites, Kurds that needed a "dictator" in charge to keep them in line... and that without that dictator, it would devolve into a cvil war...
I said this in February 2003...
ugh...

[flowomo]

53. I knew it and I wrote it. in my newspaper column....

These are two of my weekly newspaper columns from 2002 (both are also available online):

So what's the real reason?
By Rich Lewis, Aug. 29, 2002
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2002/08/29/edito18.t...

The idea of the United States attacking Iraq in order to get rid of Saddam Hussein is so ridiculous -- so stupid -- that the Bush administration can't be serious about it.

I am convinced that the constant and increasing threats to go and blast Saddam must be part of some complicated diplomatic strategy. But I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what it is.

Maybe we're trying to signal dissident forces in Iraq that if they make a move on Saddam, we'll be right behind them.

Maybe we're trying to provoke Saddam into making the first move -- so that then we can really cream him and claim it was self-defense.

Maybe rather than trying to provoke Saddam, we're just trying to freeze him -- make him so paranoid that he decides to behave.

Maybe the administration is just trying to distract attention from the economy with war talk -- which is dangerous but not nearly as dangerous as actually going to war.

I don't know. In fact, one of the reasons I'm writing this column is in the hope that the people who read it will come up with explanations that haven't occurred to me. Because, as I said, there just has to be some hidden agenda behind all this war talk. The idea of attacking Iraq is just too breathtakingly insane to take seriously. It couldn't possibly solve any of our problems and would almost certainly make them much worse.

Not to mention the likelihood of thousands of nice, young Americans dying horribly -- right along with thousands upon thousands of Iraqis, some of whom will be soldiers, but many of whom will be innocent men, women and children who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The main motive given for attacking Iraq now is that Saddam is planning to use weapons of mass destruction on us. Killing him -- and however many others get in the way -- is justified in order to prevent him from killing others in the future. You know, do unto others before they do unto you.

The problem with this reasoning is that it is a blanket excuse for violence that can never be refuted. It turns any perceived threat into a justification for war. And no one can prove that the obliterated enemy wasn't planning to attack first.

This all reminds me of that Tom Cruise movie that came out this summer -- "Minority Report" -- in which the police arrest and destroy people who haven't committed any crime -- but who a bunch of psychics in a swimming pool say will commit a crime. Just imagine George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld floating in that pool.

The hard fact is that we will not be justified in attacking Saddam until he has attacked us or someone we have pledged to defend. Period. That may be painful; it may cost lives because he just might attack us first -- but it is the price of behaving morally.

But forget all that. Who cares whether it's right or wrong to blow up a guy if you get what you want out of it?

Well, that's the other problem. Killing Saddam -- and a lot of other people in the process -- will not make the world a safer place -- and it is utterly laughable to claim otherwise.

First, we may sweep into Iraq with all our high-priced killing machines and not even take out Saddam. He might just slip away and set up shop somewhere beyond our reach -- transformed by us into an international Islamic hero, a beacon for every nutball fundamentalist from Kansas to Kashmir.

Can't happen, you say? Think Osama.

But suppose we do manage to evaporate Saddam. Who exactly is coming in behind him? Thomas Jefferson? Mahatma Gandhi? Please -- Iraq will be boiling stew of political and ethnic unhappiness, with lots of groups eager to wipe out lots of other groups. If somebody grabs control, who's to say he won't be another Saddam? Or like Osama.

Of course, we could try to run the place, or put in a puppet. That'll go down nicely with the Arab world, where we are so popular.

And speaking of the Arab world -- where we are so popular -- is there a better way to prove that we are the Great Satan than to charge in, guns blazing, killing countless Iraqis? It's hard to believe this will advance the cause of worldwide peace. Whose version of this war will be taught to millions and millions of Arabs and Muslims? George Bush's? They'll listen to Osama.

Like I say, attacking Saddam would be insane. That is so obvious.

Therefore the Bush administration must have some clever motive in suggesting it.

If I could only think of what it might be....

*****

Winning would be losing
By Rich Lewis September 26, 2002
http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2002/09/26/editorial...

Have you noticed just how weird this whole war thing has become?

I mean, the president and his team keep rattling their swords, insisting they have to go and wipe out that bad guy in Iraq — and they will do it, darn it, no matter what anybody else says.

And who needs the snooty French or the treacherous Germans anyhow?

And those chicken-hearted Democrats are just plain unpatriotic.

And we've got the troops and the tanks and the really big guns to roll in there and squash Saddam flat and put the world right again.
Comment on this Story • RSS Feed • E-mail this story • Print Version

And we have to do that. And we will do that.

And then... nothing happens.

Weeks go by and George Bush and Don Rumsfeld keep talking about going.... but like Estragon and Vladimir in "Waiting for Godot," they stay.

In fact, I sometimes feel like we're living in the unwritten third act of Samuel Beckett's two-act absurdist play.

Like Estragon and Vladimir, we seem stuck in a gloomy and hopeless situation, threatened on all sides, at the mercy of a cruel universe, and wanting nothing more than to get back to the good life that we had just a long moment ago — before the Twin Towers and the stock market fell. Before smallpox and color codes.

Beckett's two characters spend the entire play waiting for Godot to come to them, which he repeatedly promises by messenger to do, but never does.

In our cracked world, Godot waits for us to come to him, which we repeatedly threaten to do, but don't.

And usually when war is imminent, the leaders of both sides are busy making noise and shaking their fists at each other. Like the Israelis and the Palestinians. Like the Indians and the Pakistanis.

But the situation with America and Iraq is strangely different.

George Bush is out every day verbally pounding Saddam and shaking his fist so hard he risks carpal tunnel syndrome. Saddam, on the other hand, is as silent as Godot.

Sure, the Iraqi foreign minister pops up now and then to hurl a few insults at the United States and plead innocence, but where the heck is his boss? Has anyone told Saddam that 250,000 American soldiers might be knocking on the door of his palace any day now? If so, he seems to be taking it pretty well.

Believe me, I am not complaining. Any day without war is a good day in my book. Especially this war.

It isn't that I doubt that Saddam is a bad character. He is. Just like a bunch of other bad characters who happen to be in charge of whole countries. Like the "axis of evil" co-stars in North Korea and Iran.

It isn't that I doubt that we could rub Saddam off the Earth like a spot of bird doo off the hood of a car. Our Army could pound his army into sand.

Those are not the important issues.

Chances are that we would get bogged down in a bloody and expensive action in Iraq that would leave that country in chaos and, possibly, civil war.

We would ratchet up anti-American hatred throughout the Arab world.

We would further tighten the political vise around the heads or own allies as we force them to make ugly choices about whether they are "for" us or "against" us.

But forget all that. Imagine that we charge into Iraq tomorrow — and that Saddam rushes out in his nightgown, takes one good look at all those imposing American boys with guns, and drops dead of a heart attack.

Imagine that the entire population of Iraq gasps in unison, blinks twice — and then starts dancing in the streets, joyfully hugging the Americans who have liberated from the beast, Saddam.

In short, imagine that we get everything we wanted at virtually no cost.

It would still have been a horrible mistake.

Why? Because we would have endorsed the acceptability of striking another country pre-emptively on no grounds other than suspicion of future crimes. For thousands of years, it was considered a country's right to smash competitor powers whenever and wherever they could, with little or no justification. Might made right. It is a miracle of human progress that such behavior is now widely viewed as uncivilized and unacceptable.

It would be shameful if our country now asserts the rightness of attacking an enemies just because you can. Other countries will surely want to do the same; we will surely want to do the same again. On what grounds could we possibly oppose them, or stop ourselves?

The present situation may be absurd. But it is far better than unleashing a free-for-all of international military opportunism.

[Hosnon]

54. I didn't "know" it would be a mistake. I don't know what I thought about the actual logistics

of the invasion.

But I was convinced (to a reasonable degree) that Iraq did not have WMD and had nothing to do with 9/11.

The final assessment I made was that the invasion was illegal - that is why I opposed it.

[Jacobin]

55. I made a prediction

in fact, i emailed it to congresscritters when we were trying to get them to vote against the IWR.

That things would be worse with Saddam gone and it would turn into an absolute fiasco of ethnic strife and that Iran would end up as de facto owner of iraq

[WinkyDink]

56. Does marching in NYC before the invasion count?

[THUNDER HANDS]

57. I did, and got into a huge argument with my poly sci professor over it

it's a sad state of affairs when some idiot kid (me) knows more than a tenured professor.

[Jack Rabbit]

58. There isn't a lot here that I would change.

Please click here.

[pdxmom]

NT

[pdxmom]

59. Knew he was going to take us into Iraq even before he was elected

and tried to tell anybody who would listen that it would happen. People thought I was nutz.

Then knew that when we went it, it would be a disaster.

[MrSlayer]

60. I knew it and told everyone I knew about it even before the 2000 selection.

I might not be able to pick football games but I'm like Nostrodamus when it comes to the neo-cons.

[immoderate]

61. I did -- here's the proof.

This is a letter to the editor I wrote to the Arizona Republic on March 17, 2003. They never published it, but I resend it on every September 11, with an "I told you so..." introduction.

They had written an editorial saying the invasion of Iraq was dictated by the events of 9/11/01...

Dear Editor:

If I read your editorial correctly, the current US policy of invading a country that hasn’t attacked us is "dictated" by the events of 9/11. Au contraire! I think that US policy is “dictated” by (unelected) President George W. Bush. France and Germany supported us after 9/11; they still have thousands of peace keeping troops in Afghanistan and look how we treat them, like enemies.

For those who forgot about Chile, Guatemala, Iran and Viet Nam, here’s what you can expect. We will probably defeat Iraq easily. Nobody, but nobody, wants to be in the way when the United States military is bearing down. My money goes on the US in any battle. It’s the aftermath of the war that has not been calculated.

Whatever government we install in Iraq will be viewed as a US colony or puppet in their midst. It will be a magnet for terrorist attacks. The costs of security will soar. We will spend many billions over many years and they will keep attacking. Millions of idle youth plus convenient targets equals many opportunities to make martyrs. Are we ready to institute a homeland security system for Iraq? Can we even do one for ourselves?

Eventually, we will have to leave Iraq. An Iraq occupation, combined with other Bush policies will ruin us financially. Our prestige and credibility will have been decimated. Maybe the endless terror attacks will take their toll, people hate body bags. We will be leaving the Iraqi people and ourselves a lot worse off than we are now.

Hey, for those who see tenuous connections like Saddam and 9/11, why haven’t they detected a connection between gas prices and Republican control of the government?

That was written before we invaded Iraq and it's pretty fucking goddam right on. It was the consensus of people here on DU at the time, and I was reflecting that. When Republicans go into the "nobody could have known..." bullshit, that's crap. A lot of us knew.

--IMM

[AzDar]

63. I did!! Didn't realize how STRONGLY until I recently re-read my 3-year-old's

baby book. There was a section to record 'current events' around the time of his birth, and my entry is regarding Bush preparing to invade Iraq, and is sprinkled liberally with obscenities!!
Guess I'll have to explain my potty-mouth to him when he's older...

[knitter4democracy]

65. I was against them both.

I told everyone who'd listen to me that going into Afghanistan ruined the Soviet Union and could ruin us, and I was livid at going into Iraq. We all knew there weren't any WMDs by then, and Bush et.al. were in such a danged hurry to lost good American men and women (and don't forget Polish soldiers) for a wasted bit of sand. I was furious then, and I am now.

[dysfunctional press]

66. well...DUH!

likewise, i have NEVER looked on the 9/11 "attacks" as an act of war- they were a CRIME, and should have been treated as such.