• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Senate Regrets the Vote to Enter Iraq (1 Viewer)

26 X World Champs

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2005
Messages
7,536
Reaction score
429
Location
Upper West Side of Manhattan (10024)
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
This story speaks for itself. The Bush Administration is near war support "bankruptcy" and the good news is that as almost the entire nation turns against Bush's war we have a chance to end our involvement and bring our troops home so the needless deaths and maimings stop.

Senate Regrets the Vote to Enter Iraq

By JAKE TAPPER

Jan. 5, 2007 — As the new Democrat-controlled House and Senate take power this month, the Iraq war will be the front-and-center issue.

And as President Bush prepares to announce his new strategy for Iraq, which may include a surge in troops, the attitude of the Senate towards the war — and whether its members regret their overwhelming 77-23 October 2002 vote to authorize the president to use force in Iraq — is critically important.

ABC News decided to survey the views of the senators who served in 2002, most of whom remain in the Senate. The survey indicates that those senators say that if they knew then what they know now, President Bush would never have been given the authority to use force in Iraq.

It's impossible, of course, to recreate all of the factors, pressures and information that went into this momentous vote. But given that President Bush may next week request that an additional 20,000 or more troops be sent to Iraq — to fight a war 7 in 10 Americans think he isn't handling well — we thought it might prove a significant indicator of the support for the war to see where these same senators from 2002 now stand. Regret, after all, may not be a valued commodity in politics, but it is not one that public officials express easily, even with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight. That said, a surprising number of senators who voted for the war were willing to say that they, and the Senate, made a mistake.

By ABC News' count, if the Senators knew then what they know now, only 43 — at most — would still vote to approve the use of force and the measure would be defeated. And at least 57 senators would vote against going to war, a number that combines those who already voted against the war resolution with those who told ABC News they would vote against going to war, or said that the pre-war intelligence has been proven so wrong the measure would lose or it would never even come to a vote.
Source: ABC News: Senate Regrets the Vote to Enter Iraq
 
By ABC News' count, if the Senators knew then what they know now, only 43 — at most — would still vote to approve the use of force and the measure would be defeated.

Isn't hindsight amazing? If I knew then, what I know now, I would have bought more shares of Google.

:roll:
 
Last edited:
I'm surprised. I didn't think in this day and age with the internet and all, that anyone listened to the MSM Alphabet news propagandists. I guess it's true what they say........there's a sucker born every day.
 
I'm surprised. I didn't think in this day and age with the internet and all, that anyone listened to the MSM Alphabet news propagandists. I guess it's true what they say........there's a sucker born every day.
So in other words ABC is lying about their Senate poll? Is that what you'd have us believe?

Wouldn't that be a tad too easy to disprove? We're not talking about an opinion poll of 1000 Americans...the poll only includes the 100 US Senators...

So instead of posting BS like you just did please elaborate on how this is untrue and propaganda?
 
Isn't hindsight amazing? If I knew then, what I know now, I would have bought more shares of Google.

Don't you think people who bought Google shares early made a genius financial decision?
 
So in other words ABC is lying about their Senate poll? Is that what you'd have us believe?

Wouldn't that be a tad too easy to disprove? We're not talking about an opinion poll of 1000 Americans...the poll only includes the 100 US Senators...

So instead of posting BS like you just did please elaborate on how this is untrue and propaganda?

So tell me, as you claimed, where is your proof that the entire nation has turned against 'Bush's war'?

The MSM lies to you people all the time about everything. You are just to doltish to realize it. You are MSM alphabet fodder.
 
Don't you think people who bought Google shares early made a genius financial decision?

Dropping in an extra hundred thousand troops or so at the beginning of the war and moving quickly to secure the country would have been genius too.
 
So tell me, as you claimed, where is your proof that the entire nation has turned against 'Bush's war'?

The MSM lies to you people all the time about everything. You are just to doltish to realize it. You are MSM alphabet fodder.
So you're one of those of Americans who live in the 51st state? The State of Denial?

70% of America is against the Iraq War. 70% want us to find a way home sooner rather than later. Most of the nation does not live in the same state that you're inhabiting.

Your ridiculous comments about the media is pure speculation and you've not provided any proof of anything other than your singular opinion. I cited the opinion of the 100 US Senators...Wonder whose speaking creditability and who is speaking from the State of Denial?
 
So you're one of those of Americans who live in the 51st state? The State of Denial?

70% of America is against the Iraq War. 70% want us to find a way home sooner rather than later. Most of the nation does not live in the same state that you're inhabiting.

Your ridiculous comments about the media is pure speculation and you've not provided any proof of anything other than your singular opinion. I cited the opinion of the 100 US Senators...Wonder whose speaking creditability and who is speaking from the State of Denial?
I remember when 70% of the nation was for the war and still people like you claimed Americans were stupid for it.........so now I can say the same thing....70% of Americans are stupid to believe the liberal media and liberals politicians who has politicized a war......
 
This story speaks for itself. The Bush Administration is near war support "bankruptcy" and the good news is that as almost the entire nation turns against Bush's war we have a chance to end our involvement and bring our troops home so the needless deaths and maimings stop.


***Love it when you Monday morning quarterbacks step up to the plate after the fact. Just goes to show you how much credence one can put into the vote of a liberal. Why does John Kerry's flip-flopping campaign of 2004 come to mind here?

That article is bogus in the fact that the liberally controlled congress has no intention of touching America's most important issue of the war. The libs, i.e. Pelosi et al are stuffing a 100 hour agenda down our throats that deals with minimum pay hikes and an attempt to stop the tax cuts. And the new congress has already reneaged on its promise to work in a bi-partisan manner by shutting out the Republicans on their 100 hour agenda. How bi-partisan was it for Nancy Pelosi to send a letter to Bush stating that she and her cohorts would not back any plan to increase troop deployment in Iraq? This happened 5 days before Bush was to announce his plans on Iraq. Talk about spin! You need to focus on what looks to be a complete ineptness on the part of this new power hungry-issue depleted congress.
 
Is it NOT okay for people to change their minds about something, particularly when circumstances have changed substantially since they voted for the war? Someone please enlighten me if this is NOT okay.

If I marry a man I love and he then cheats on me--is it wrong for me to regret marrying him and subsequently divorce him? Is that Monday moring quarterbacking?
 
Is it NOT okay for people to change their minds about something, particularly when circumstances have changed substantially since they voted for the war? Someone please enlighten me if this is NOT okay.

If I marry a man I love and he then cheats on me--is it wrong for me to regret marrying him and subsequently divorce him? Is that Monday moring quarterbacking?
I dunno, aps.:shrug:

Stayin' the course, even if it takes you over a cliff, maybe it's a macho thing or something.
Kinda like not stopping to ask for directions.

Me, I'm looking at a map and altering my course.
No egos here.:wink:
 
Is it NOT okay for people to change their minds about something, particularly when circumstances have changed substantially since they voted for the war? Someone please enlighten me if this is NOT okay.

***Its not okay to change minds after the fact. The point being that these elected people represent our legislative power, and if they can't get their act together in the first place--they need to either resign their position or hand it over to a more capable Republican replacement.

If I marry a man I love and he then cheats on me--is it wrong for me to regret marrying him and subsequently divorce him? Is that Monday moring quarterbacking?

***This if where people need to do their homework before commiting to a marriage or a government policy. The first sign of liberalism from a potential date for me--means that she'll be better off joining her feminist lesbian sisters for a night of singing coom-bai-ya.
 
***This if where people need to do their homework before commiting to a marriage or a government policy. The first sign of liberalism from a potential date for me--means that she'll be better off joining her feminist lesbian sisters for a night of singing coom-bai-ya.

LOL! I believe that the dems are at fault to some extent for not researching the intelligence more before voting to support this piece-of-$hit war.
 
It is very easy to second guess the administration on the war after the fact.........
 
It is very easy to second guess the administration on the war after the fact.........

It's also easy to judge the administration based upon the intelligence it touted prior to the vote on the war.

May the hearings in Congress flesh out the deceitfulness of this administration. Oh, yeah, wasn't Bush supposed to restore integrity in the White House? LOL
 
It's also easy to judge the administration based upon the intelligence it touted prior to the vote on the war.

May the hearings in Congress flesh out the deceitfulness of this administration. Oh, yeah, wasn't Bush supposed to restore integrity in the White House? LOL

The same intelligence that the senate intelligence committee saw and the British to this day stand by........

Yeah and N ancy Pelosi is going to restore integrity By giving coimmitte leaderships to crooks like Hastings and Murtha and allowing crooks like Jefferson to serve on committees..............aps take off your rose colored glasses, there is enough corruption to go around in both parties....
 
That article is bogus in the fact that the liberally controlled congress has no intention of touching America's most important issue of the war.
How is a poll of the 100 US Senators bogus? Please explain exactly what you claim is untrue about the fact that 57 Senators now say that they would not have voted for the war had the truth that was KNOWN by Bush in 2002 been revealed then instead of now.
 
It is very easy to second guess the administration on the war after the fact.........
No it is not when the Administration held back all of the intelligence and only shared the portion that backed their claims. That is simply known as MANIPULATING THE TRUTH and that is a whole lot different than "second guessing."

Plus and just as important Bush still refuses to acknowledge all the mistakes that he's made and he continues to support his stay the course losing plan.

The fact is that in my opinion a so-called surge is the same as staying the course especially when his generals are flat out against it to the point that he had to fire them!

How many times is Bush gonna kick you in the balls Navy Pride before you realize he's hurting you?

How many times Navy Pride have you written in this Forum that Bush should listen to the Generals on the ground? Well the Generals on the ground are telling him that the surge is a loser...even John McCain is displeased with the waek-as$ Bush surge because 20,000 troops is not enough to effect anything short or long term. McCain wants 100,000 more...problem is we don't have another 100,000 available...
 
aps take off your rose colored glasses, there is enough corruption to go around in both parties....

LOL Yes, I agree that the corruption goes both ways. However, I must point out that whatever Murtha, Hastings, and Jefferson did has not caused the death of 3000 soldiers.
 
LOL Yes, I agree that the corruption goes both ways. However, I must point out that whatever Murtha, Hastings, and Jefferson did has not caused the death of 3000 soldiers.

You know what they say aps, Freedom is not free..............
 
By ABC News' count, if the Senators knew then what they know now, only 43 — at most — would still vote to approve the use of force and the measure would be defeated.

Isn't hindsight amazing? If I knew then, what I know now, I would have bought more shares of Google.

:roll:

So knowing this:

By John D. Banusiewicz
American Forces Press Service WASHINGTON, Jan. 29, 2004 - The man who spent eight months leading the hunt for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq told senators here Jan. 28 that although no such weapons have been found, he believes Iraq may have been "even more dangerous than we thought" before Saddam Hussein was removed from power.
David Kay, who stepped down last week as head of the Iraq Survey Group, appeared before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Kay told the senators he has changed his belief - which he pointed out was shared by U.S. and foreign intelligence agencies, including those of governments that opposed the war - that Iraq had stockpiles of biological or chemical weapons, and possibly an advanced nuclear-weapons program, before the war began. But he added that he now believes Iraq actually may have been more dangerous than anyone might have believed at the time.
"I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein," Kay told the committee. "I think that when we have the complete record, you're going to discover that after 1998, it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection, and in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out to be not a fully accurate estimate."



DefenseLINK News: Iraq May Have Been 'Far More Dangerous' Than Believed, Kay Tells Senators

So can we trust these Senators with our national security?



"Looking back on the evidence, Kay said, he understands the decision to go to war. "I think it's often easy to forget that in the case of Saddam, here's an individual who had invaded two neighboring countries, used chemical weapons against one of those, used them against his own neighbors, and who, by U.N. testimony, had cheated and lied for a decade," he said.
The day before, Kay appeared on the NBC "Today" show and said the notion that U.S. leaders misled the American people in building the case for war is unfair. "And it trivializes what we did find and the problem we face," he told interviewer Matt Lauer.



What are these Senators basing their conclusions on?



This" The Duelfer report



Saddam Husayn so dominated the Iraqi Regime that its strategic intent was his alone. He wanted to end sanctions while preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction (WMD) when sanctions were lifted.
  • Saddam totally dominated the Regime’s strategic decision making. He initiated most of the strategic thinking upon which decisions were made, whether in matters of war and peace (such as invading Kuwait), maintaining WMD as a national strategic goal, or on how Iraq was to position itself in the international community. Loyal dissent was discouraged and constructive variations to the implementation of his wishes on strategic issues were rare. Saddam was the Regime in a strategic sense and his intent became Iraq’s strategic policy.
  • Saddam’s primary goal from 1991 to 2003 was to have UN sanctions lifted, while maintaining the security of the Regime. He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections—to gain support for lifting sanctions—with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. Indeed, this remained the goal to the end of the Regime, as the starting of any WMD program, conspicuous or otherwise, risked undoing the progress achieved in eroding sanctions and jeopardizing a political end to the embargo and international monitoring.
  • The introduction of the Oil-For-Food program (OFF) in late 1996 was a key turning point for the Regime. OFF rescued Baghdad’s economy from a terminal decline created by sanctions. The Regime quickly came to see that OFF could be corrupted to acquire foreign exchange both to further undermine sanctions and to provide the means to enhance dual-use infrastructure and potential WMD-related development.
  • By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime, both in terms of oil exports and the trade embargo, by the end of 1999.
Saddam wanted to recreate Iraq’s WMD capability—which was essentially destroyed in 1991—after sanctions were removed and Iraq’s economy stabilized, but probably with a different mix of capabilities to that which previously existed. Saddam aspired to develop a nuclear capability—in an incremental fashion, irrespective of international pressure and the resulting economic risks—but he intended to focus on ballistic missile and tactical chemical warfare (CW) capabilities.
  • Iran was the pre-eminent motivator of this policy. All senior level Iraqi officials considered Iran to be Iraq’s principal enemy in the region. The wish to balance Israel and acquire status and influence in the Arab world were also considerations, but secondary.
  • Iraq Survey Group (ISG) judges that events in the 1980s and early 1990s shaped Saddam’s belief in the value of WMD. In Saddam’s view, WMD helped to save the Regime multiple times. He believed that during the Iran-Iraq war chemical weapons had halted Iranian ground offensives and that ballistic missile attacks on Tehran had broken its political will. Similarly, during Desert Storm, Saddam believed WMD had deterred Coalition Forces from pressing their attack beyond the goal of freeing Kuwait. WMD had even played a role in crushing the Shi’a revolt in the south following the 1991 cease-fire.
  • The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.
 
Tell me who is benefitting from this alleged freedom...
No one at this point...Iraq is in the early stages of what will most likely be a long civil war. No one is free in Iraq today. They've traded a dictatorship for a civil war...that's lose lose.

Nothing changes the fact that Bush manipulated the truth in order to start the war and that is very, very evil. America is in no way safer today than it was the day before we invaded Iraq. In truth we are less safe, more in danger. We've created countless more new enemies around the world and especially in the Middle East.

Everything that Bush supposedly went to war to protect Americans from has backfired completely. We are less safe, there are more terrorists, they are better trained and equipped today than they were before we attacked and they are much more professional at killing and making bombs today than they were before we invaded.

All the bullshit about Saddam being a threat is just that, bullshit. He was pretending to have weapons not to threaten the US and the West. He was pretending because he wanted to keep the Shiites and Kurds under his dictatorship and the threat of him having these weapons was his objective, plain and simple.
 
Is it NOT okay for people to change their minds about something, particularly when circumstances have changed substantially since they voted for the war? Someone please enlighten me if this is NOT okay.

How about when we find out it was even worse than we thought?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom