A little of both on my part (4.00 / 2)

While I could see the complete idiocy of taking the likes of Cheney, Wolfowitz, Perle, and Feith on faith - especially given their public stances on this issue via the Project for a New American Century ---I must say, I bought the whole notion that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD.  While I could be fairly certain that many were likely useless due to the lack of maintenance imposed by the embargoes, I figured a depotic dictator-type like Hussein would hold back a few good weapons "just in case".  But, in the end, it seems Hussein was a big bullshitter!  So, I was wrong - but I WAS IN THE STREETS before the invasion - mostky because I thought it might give some politician, somewhere, the guts to actually stand up and introduce a Declaration of War (you know, like the Constitution tells the Congress to do) and the subsequent public debate would blow holes in the Bush plans.

Oh well, I was wrong - again - because I thought that the Congress Critters actually gave a shit about their Constitutional duties.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:14:49 PM UTC

That waqs one of my two surprises, that there were NO WMDs at all (4.00 / 1)

The second surprise: that the neocons would be just this incompetent at running a war.  I thought that it wouldn't go well, and that the Iraqi people would be unhappy with Chalabi running the country and everything.

But I wasn't expecting to have Rumsfeld openly ignoring the advice of his generals, or to have diplomats not able to fathom the obvious sectarian conflicts that developed.  That they still have no idea what the hell to do about Kurdistan is astounding.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:58:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I don't buy the "incompetent" story (0.00 / 0)

Rather, I think the architects of the invasion of Iraq pretty much knew what would happen, but they did it anyway.  The whole notion of being greeted as liberators, building a democratic Middle East, going in with a "small foot-print" - all "lipstick on a pig", so to speak.  Designed to make it look better, so that they could get more support (really, less resistance) from the public and the Congress.  A sales job.

I just can't believe that a group of people with as much collective knowledge of the Middle East, and Iraq in particular, along with decades of experience in military affairs could be so damned stupid and blind.  But, maybe I underestimate the powwer of arrogance....

At the same time, we should realize that portraying Iraq as a "mistake" (except Cheney, that is) is a kind of CYA tactic - it takes the issue from the realm of the criminal into the realm of "good intentions gone bad" - which is a major benefit for the "legacy" of those involved, but more importantly of the notion that the US is NOT an empire, and we always act for the GOOD.  

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:22:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

you may be on to something (4.00 / 1)

I'm thinking of the quote Suskind caught from the Bush aide deriding the reality based community while they were out forging reality.

I guess they did expect the magic ponies to appear and make a blissful disaster capitalist Iraqi utopia and thus the missing WMDs would be a footnote ignored in the mass celebration of their genuis.

I seem to remember the Admin was slow out of the gate in actually looking for them, and definitely played down the coverage of that effort.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:27:37 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

There might be something to be said for this (0.00 / 0)

but still, there was so much that was done so stupidly.  It's not a contradiction to say that they were malicious and incompetent--having the army not secure oil fields and ammo depots because they had to tear down the Saddam statue doesn't even aid the neocon cause of expanding empire and making things happy for Shell and Exxon.  Neither did the Rumsfeldian notion of a 'lean' and 'quick' military.

Was a lot of it evil?  Sure.  but a lot of it seems like Goldfinger's crotch laser just dropped off of it's hinge and started destroying his secret lair, along with James Bond's shackles, giving him a chance to escape.

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:40:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I agree with you - almost (0.00 / 0)

I'm just trying to keep the malicious part of the Neo-Con Junta in public view - because they will run away from it, while the MSM and the military/industrial/congressional complex will try as hard as they can to make this invasion of Iraq look like a "one off" - a mistake, an aberration - which I firmly believe it is not. The mess in Iraq WAS the goal.

Mistakes can be forgiven and forgotten - but war crimes?  No so much.

Where we disagree:

"It's not a contradiction to say that they were malicious and incompetent--having the army not secure oil fields and ammo depots because they had to tear down the Saddam statue doesn't even aid the neocon cause of expanding empire and making things happy for Shell and Exxon.  Neither did the Rumsfeldian notion of a 'lean' and 'quick' military. "

Where did all that oil that the US military did not secure end up?  As far as I know, its still in the ground and - its value has roughly tripled since the invasion.  So, why pump it and sell it in 2003, or 2004 - when you could just sit on it and make more money when you finally get around to pumping it is 2008, or beyond? If you don't think that Shell and Exxon are gonna be involved in pumping, shipping, and refining Iraqi crude, you need to think again. Even if that doesn't "aid" the US empire-building - it certainly doesn't hurt it.

I'm with you on the "lean and light" Rumsfeld notions.  I must say, I don't understand that rationale.  Even if you don't think that you need 500,000 US troops - why not send them anyway?  That way, when everyone is in the streets demanding "US Troops Home Now!", you can bring 60% home right away - leaving the number you figured you needed in the first place.  So, yeah, they made some mistakes, too.

But at the root this was about US military power sitting right on top of the Iraqi oil fields for the next 25, 50, or 100 years.  "Mission Accomplished!" may have been accurate, after all - just not in the way the MSM pitched it.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 18:15:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Against It From Well Before The Beginning (4.00 / 3)

From September 11, 2001, to be precise.  And I was hardly alone.

It's worth noting that only 54% of Americans said the US should respond to 9/11 with military force in a poll conducted by Gallup as part of a 35-nation international poll, within about a week of 9/11.  30% said we should take a law-enforcement approach, capturing those responsible and putting them in jail.  16% were undecided.

I also wrote an article in Random Lengths News published in early October, 2002, "Iraq Attack-The Aims and Origins of Bush's Plans", which was one of five articles cited as Project Censored's #1 story for 2002-2003: The Neoconservative Plan for Global Dominance.

It was quite obvious at the time what was going on, and that it had nothing to do with 9/11.  But continued hysteria made it relatively easy to suppress the obvious.

Now, however, it seems to be simple embarrasment that's driving the continued suppression.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:30:44 PM UTC

I've been trying to think (4.00 / 1)

About what my mentality was back then that led me to be nonchalant about the whole thing.

I think I can best sum it up by saying I was just a passive consumer of news.  Stuff was just happening and I was watching the parade not contemplating that the floats were on fire.

Well, I'm already against the next war.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:42:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

To be fair (4.00 / 1)

I actually bought Colin Powell's moment of "glory" at the UN.  So, I cannot throw too many stones - but like you, I certainly have learned my lesson.  

I have had to learn to not simply trust what comes out of the government's mouth without thinking about the motivation behind what is said - especially when it comes to wars and no-bid boondoggles.

---

by: Dangling Dave @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:52:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ha (4.00 / 1)

Remember the Powell doctrine?

I had studied it in university and it certainly affected my impression of the man.  He wouldn't buy this if there wasn't something to it!

He deserves his ignomity.  

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:56:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

At the time, it really seemed to me that he wasn't buying it (4.00 / 1)

and he was forced to go along with a company line.  If that's the case, he deserves even further shame.  

I was actually baffled that no one challenged this war just based on the Powell Doctrine, asking Powell directly about how this war could possibly measure up to that level of rigor

---

by: Valatan @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:01:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately (0.00 / 0)

I do remember, and that credibility was what swayed me.

He used it all up that day, and then some (at least with me).

---

by: Dangling Dave @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:02:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I remember Colin Powell during the First Gulf War (4.00 / 1)

I watched him give a news conference in which he used a HAND DRAWN cartoon, showing before and after "pictures" of a target in Iraq that the Iraqis claimed created major collateral damge.  Yet, there was Powell, with his cartoons, "proving" that the attck did not create collateral damage.  Did I mention that the pictures were cartoons?  Not only did that pretty much ruin Colin Powell's illusion of integrity, that fact that every single reporter nodded their head and took notes, while not a single one asked Gen, Powell how he could make such a ridiculously inane comment based on cartoons, pretty much told me that the MSM is a wholly-owned subsidiary of USA, Inc.

So, no,Colin Powell had no credibility when he joined the Bush Administration, or when he lied to the UN.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:30:12 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I was 15 years old in 1991 (0.00 / 0)

I hope that excuses me from culpability in not assessing Powell's credibility more accurately.

That's great information though.  The media has been more broken for longer than many of us realize.

I think I'll do my next unstacking the deck post on the media.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:34:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Unfortunately, I doubt there are any copies of that video (0.00 / 0)

But, I clearly remember seeing it in the student union TV lounge at Northern Illinois University.  It caused quite stir because it was so damned obvious that it was BS.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:38:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I bought it too, sadly (4.00 / 1)

Though I never was ardently pro-war, I was somewhat ambivalent about it back in late 2002 and early 2003.  I sensed the whole thing was going too fast, and that that the rationale was shaky, but I believed Powell's speech as well.  Tom Friedman, Democrats like Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton, and other "liberal hawks" also seemed to push me away from a strong anti-war stand.  I ended up being neutral in the whole thing.  In the end, it just sort of happened, and I hoped for the best.

I'm very embarrassed that I was duped back then.  I was a 19 year old college student, but still should have known better than to trust the government, or even the Democratic Party.  I should have known better.  I should have known that Krugman, Feingold, Durbin, and The Nation were right, and that Friedman, Biden, Edwards, Clinton, and The New Republic were wrong.  How did I believe a word that came out of the Bush administration's mouth?  I'm sure the haze of 9/11 had something to do with my ambivalence toward Iraq.  I knew in the back of my mind that this was all nuts, but somehow, I thought maybe it would turn out okay.  I was duped, and it shouldn't have taken much for me to realize what was really going on.

It was right about the time of Mission Accomplished that I began reading Daily Kos, and soon after turned harshly against the war and supported Howard Dean's insurgent campaign.  The Iraq War was the tipping point that led to my  involvement in progressive politics.  I am committed to never letting anything like it happen again.

---

by: BCdem @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:34:07 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

All too often (4.00 / 1)

the focus is on who did wrong.  I am very glad that you chose to focus here on who did right.  

Focusing on those who called it right in the beginning it helps me feel like we aren't all just helplessly watching the vast ocean of "experts" currently flooding our government and corporate media derail our country, and that we have some ability to do something - even if it is to merely record that we were against it.

Thanks for the post.

---

by: Dangling Dave @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:40:43 PM UTC

Millions (4.00 / 4)

Don't forget the millions of people who marched in Washington, New York, San Francisco and across the country and world to stop the madness before it began, and people like Dennis Kucinich and Cynthia McKinney who were there marching with the protesters from the beginning.

---

by: green in brooklyn @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 15:48:12 PM UTC

Keith Ellison, too (0.00 / 0)

he was out in the streets with us - before the war and before he was in the Congress.


"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:31:41 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Peace Organizations (4.00 / 2)

I don't have documentation, but as I recall, peace organizations like Peace Action (formerly Sane/Freeze) and Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) were pointing out that there were no good reasons for the invasion of Iraq, the intelligence presented by the Bush administration was biased, the invasion was being promoted by neocons in the Project for the New American Century who had been pushing for an invasion since 1998, and many of these same people had supported Saddam Hussein back during the Iraq-Iran war when Iraq was gassing the Kurds. In addition, they pointed out that a war would be incredibly destructive of Iraqi society, kill thousands of people, destroy the infrastructure, and unleash simmering anger between various factions in Iraq. All of these predictions, of course, came true. As FCNL says, "War is not the answer."

Here is a Slate list of prominent people who supported and opposed the war (and why) in February 2003.

Some others who should be noted:

Norman Solomon, media critic and author of War Made Easy

Jeremy Scahill, reporter for Pacifica Radio

And just to add to the list of pundits who got it very wrong, this American Prospect article calls out five prominent pundits.

---

by: RandomNonviolence @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:02:16 PM UTC

Taking a stand (4.00 / 1)

Thanks for this diary.  There were brave voices in 2002 and 2003 who realized the insanity of this country's march to war.  Sadly, I was not one of them, but looking back, I am proud the real patriots who were.

---

by: BCdem @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:37:17 PM UTC

Some people who helped me get it right... (4.00 / 5)

Not my dad...grrr

From my memory these are the people and arguments that left me with no doubt that the Iraq War claims were nonsense and the war itself would be a disaster.

Scott Ritter, US Marines, Iraq Weapons inspector in 90's.  
Reported the fact that as inspector 95% of Saddam's WMD from before the first Iraq War were destroyed and accounted for, that the other 5% were likely destroyed but unaccounted for, that the Nuclear Programs were dismantled, that Saddam's cat and mouse games were and could be overcome, and that if Saddam were to restart his programs the Inspectors would KNOW because they were monitoring not just Iraq but Iraq's potential sources.

Ray McGovern, retired CIA analyst, 27 year career including morning briefings to multiple Presidents, founded in 2003 Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, VIPS.
Huge critic of the Cheney, Bush, and Powell for pressuring CIA analysts and manipulating intelligence. McGovern would provide continuous response and critiques of Administration claims, pointing out their distortions of the facts and the process in near real time.  Absolutely invaluable information at the time. Confronted Rumsfeld and questioned him, albeit after the war, but he was making the same argument before the war, about his deliberate lies to the media that there was bullet proof evidence of links between al Queda and Saddam.  Also as a trained analyst not afraid to speak out against American power, he spelled out what to me was a clear headed explanation of why Bush wanted to go to War:

"I've been using the acronym O.I.L. for many - for two years now: O for oil; I for Israel; and L for logistics, logistics being the permanent - now we say "enduring" - military bases that the U.S. wants to keep in Iraq."

By far the expertise and reputations of Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern were most critical to me in evaluating the arguments during the runup to war.  But the real key I believe is how I, some random 20 year old in los angeles with an office job, and a new family, could have such clear and unfiltered access to Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern.  My dad is a factory worker and after 9/11 started getting his news from Fox News, so it wasn't any personal connections I assure you.

KPFK 90.7 FM Los Angeles, Pacifica Radio, Democracy Now! with Amy Goodman
Before blogs, Pacifica Radio was my source for all non-MSM news.  They brought me the voices of Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern, including Whole Speeches they would give.  All I would get from the MSM were obvious adminstration smear jobs against these two courageous truth tellers.  They reported on PNAC, and brought the McClatchy stories to my attention as the MOST important main stream stories in the run up to the war, regardless of how much or little MSM attention they received.  I feel very lucky that I had a completely different information stream before the Iraq War thanks to Pacifica Radio.  Frankly, I don't think I had a TV in 2003, or watch more than an hour or two total of the MSM.  Now blogs serve the same function for me, but at the time I don't know were else outside of direct involvement in anti-war organizations, I would have gotten the information that I got at the time.

The other thing Pacifica Radio gave me was a highly critical view of American foreign policy, historically and since 9/11.  Not that America was at fault or evil, but that people like Chalmers Johnson and others were writing and speaking about things like Blowback, overseas reactions to the massive American military base system, and the absolute danger of imperial overreach that an Iraq War would likely represent.  There were more voices as well

McClatchy Newspapers, Washington Bureau Reporters who critically examined Bush's claims and documented the holes in the nonsense.  They become a source of hard reporting and mainstream confirmation of many of the claims Ritter and McGovern were making.

There were also a few other important people who could have helped get things right, if they were listened to:

Brent Scowcroft, Bush I National Security Advisor
Against the war publicly, and it was widely reported that the Bush I foreign policy team was against the neoconservative ideological adventure in Iraq.  Scowcroft reassured the public that not all Wise Men believed the obvious lies we were hearing from Bush, and that those lies were NOT a necessary and legitimate evil being told in order to wage a necessary and legitimate war.

Greg Palast, Investigative Report, BBC, Guardian
Who I believe reported very early on the Bush's claims that Iraq had anything to do with al Queda, or 9/11 were illogical and most certainly Bush propaganda to justify the neoconservative dream as spelled out by their little club the Project for a New American Century, PNAC.  I believe Greg Palast was the first I heard report on PNAC.

Noam Chomsky.

Chalmers Johnson.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:57:23 PM UTC

Great list, thanks (0.00 / 0)

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 16:59:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Couple corrections... (0.00 / 0)

At the time, it was the Knight-Ridder reporters, who were later bought by McClatchy.

I was 27. ;)


John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 17:11:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ritter and McGovern (4.00 / 1)

The marketing job for the war revved up right before I was about to start a political show on People TV, the Atlanta public access channel. I had no opinion at the time. I told a friend about my show, and the first thing he said was to ask me what I thought about war with Iraq. I told him that I didn't know enough to have an opinion. I then proceeded to do some research on the internets. I found liberal websites like TomPaine.com and commondreams.org where all the war hype was handily debunked. I learned about Ray McGovern's group, Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. I went to a Scott Ritter lecture at Georgia State University and videotaped the entire thing and ran the entire hour and 40 minutes on my TV show, including the entire Q & A.

The bottom line is that anyone with an internet connection could easily figure out that opposing the war was a no-brainer. I'm sick of the dismissals of "Monday morning quarterbacks" and "20-20 hindsight." There were plenty of Saturday evening quarterbacks with 20-20 foresight. I was one of them, and I'm just some regular Joe with DSL and a motivation to have an informed opinion.

miasmo.com

---

by: miasmo @ Tue Mar 25, 2008 at 04:12:35 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

You forgot Al Gore (4.00 / 1)

and Poland.

---

by: BigTuna @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 17:19:50 PM UTC

Al Gore, of course (0.00 / 0)

His MoveOn.org sponsored speech was a very big deal in that it talked about the corruption of the Bush lies and propaganda leading this country to war.

I would ask anyone who felt ambivalent about the war, did you not hear Al Gore's speech?  Was his reputation not that strong at the time?

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 17:24:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

ok (0.00 / 0)

I took a look now and I find this speech in Sept 2002, and the MoveOn one in August 2003 (after the invasion).

The latter one is far stronger but it was after the invasion was done.  I'll give him points for turning emphatically against the occupation while it was still popular.  The first one is very piecemeal, and includes statements like

Moreover, if we quickly succeed in a war against the weakened and depleted fourth rate military of Iraq and then quickly abandon that nation as President Bush has abandoned Afghanistan after quickly defeating a fifth rate military there, the resulting chaos could easily pose a far greater danger to the United States than we presently face from Saddam. We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.

Am I missing another speech where his opposition to the war was stronger?  In that one he only calls for a more limited AUMF and the need for a UN authorization.  Good as far as it went, but buying the WMDs stuff isn't so great.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 17:50:58 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Sorry, I didn't realize MoveOn speech was after war (4.00 / 1)

I forgot the 2003 MoveOn speech was after the war started.  Thanks for actually looking that up.

I don't even remember his 2002 speech, so Al Gore is not one I would consider as having got it right before the war.

You're right, Al Gore doesn't really deserve too much credit, and I take back my challenge.  I guess I just shot my mouth off on that one.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 18:10:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

D'oh! (4.00 / 1)

Sorry Sci, I have apparently been working from a highly-edited copy of that speech.  Upon comparing the full text with what I have it's clear someone was trying to make Gore look more progressive than the situation merits.  My apologies for posting without performing due diligence.  I let the excitement of the Poland gag cloud my judgment ;)

---

by: BigTuna @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 19:17:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The poland joke (0.00 / 0)

Was good.  I can't blame you, I had to go looking myself and read what he had actually said.   The before-war speech isn't all bad but not good enough to merit inclusion on this list.

Still, if the argument was "would gore have invaded" I think the answer is obviously "no."

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 19:32:51 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hindsight (4.00 / 1)

Someone at our caucus stood up and said, in part "I knew there were no WMD's, and so did Obama!"

To which I say: No you didn't! You had a hunch - I had the same hunch - and we were proven right. But, in 2002, you didn't actually know, and neither did he. History bore you out, but don't take credit for knowledge you didn't have.

Hillary Clinton had access to more information that you, me, or Obama, and she voted for the AUMF. The fact this information was faulty and/or fabricated (and some remains secret) is, again, a gift of hindsight. I'll fault her for not following the same hunch, but we don't know what the balance of information in front of her was.

I protested the impending war for two reasons. Even though I knew there could be weapons, I objected to a premature, pre-emptive war on a broken country what was no threat to the Union (it was a threat to Israel, is all). And a fellow concert-goer at Benaroya Hall called my wife a DFH for supporting the right of the Thursday evening protesters to march down the nearby avenue; that triggered us to join the marchers ourselves.

---

by: UncleDavid @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 18:14:59 PM UTC

I don't give Hillary credit... (0.00 / 0)

I don't disagree, of course, that we didn't "know," but I think a stronger case can be made than just having a hunch.

In terms of Clinton, I think a yes vote on the AUMF, was a political vote in support of War so as not to be seen as soft on defense.  So, it is very hard for me to give Hillary the benefit of the doubt in terms of what intelligence and info she might have seen.  Many Senators who saw the same intelligence voted against, did they not?  There was more than enough doubt raised about the intelligence being "fixed" to allow Clinton to vote against the War, if she had the courage.

In terms of what the public "knew" at the time, I would argue that people, exposed to the reports I saw, "knew" that Bush was capable and willing to "fix" the intelligence.  And I think that people could justifiably have "no doubt" that a proper case for War had not been made.  It is a moral question after all.  

I think the only reasonable doubt someone, especially a Senator, could hold was whether the War might be successful.  Frankly, I think that is the doubt that Dem Senators like Clinton held when voting for the AUMF. A successful War was very tough to vote against after 9/11, given the brazenness with which Bush was willing to lie to the country ("Iraq playing a role in 9/11" being exhibit A) in order to go to War.  So, I give no credit for supporting the AUMF, because I feel it was a political decision to vote for a possibly successful War.

My 2 cents.

John McCain says overturn the law that legalized abortion

---

by: alcatholic @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 19:40:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You are both dancing around the fact (0.00 / 0)

that it is the Constitutional duty of the US Congress to Declare War - not to offer the Executive Branch a blank-check such as the AUMF. All the excuses and apologies in the known universe do not change that fact.

Every single congress member abicated that duty - regardless of how they voted on AUMF.

Even so, to claim that Clinton had some kind of "intelligence" that the rest of us didn't know about is simply wishful thinking - she has admitted (didn't she?) that she didn't bother to read the NIE before voting - so, to me, it plain that she barely even thought about it, let alone conducted any kind of "research".

Sure, you can try and blame all this on the neo-con junta - and I do not doubt for one single moment that they lied and cheated to get the war they wanted - but DAMMIT - its a Senator's JOB to make sure that the executive is not BSing them - isn't it?  (an question that John Edwards never answered, by the way)

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

---

by: SpitBall @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 20:54:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Don't forget Hunter S. Thompson (4.00 / 1)

on April 1, 2003:

That is how it works in the U.S.A. -- especially in times of War, and this incredibly mis-managed War on Iraq will not be going away anytime soon. This one is a Tar-baby, sports fans.

It has already shot damaging holes in our national confidence and made dangerous Fools of whoever is running the Pentagon -- not to mention the stunning $1,000,000,000 we are squandering every 24 hours to bomb Iraq back to the stone Age and starve millions of helpless, un-armed, terrorized civilians to death, in the name of some hateful, ill-advised, ill-fated military Crusade on the other side of the world. How long, O lord, how long? We used to be smarter than that.

---

by: FearItself @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 21:53:07 PM UTC

You want getting it right in the first place... (4.00 / 1)

check out this letter written by my friend Bob Wing, then the editor of Colorlines Magazine, on September 14, 2001. A sample:

...we should all be prepared for events to move fast. In particular, when the U.S. mounts its counterattacks (which I believe is likely to eventually include the murder of Saddam Hussein), a wave of jingoism (and racism) is likely to sweep the country. We need to work hard ahead of this wave, prepare to weather it without getting too terribly isolated, and smartly fight our way through it. We're in for hard times, and our allies abroad even more so. We will all be struggling to find our bearings. We will make mistakes. Let's be tolerant of each other, keep our eyes on the real enemies, and seek clarity and unity. Let's think big and get organized. Maybe we can build something for the long run.

The whole thing is worth reading. It truly qualifies as prescient.

Can it happen here?

---

by: janinsanfran @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 22:12:41 PM UTC

Yeah, holy shit (0.00 / 0)

That guy nailed it.

---

by: Daniel De Groot @ Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 22:36:06 PM UTC

[ Parent ]