Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 10 years ago

Why did all the top Democrats vote to invade Iraq, and later pretend they didn't?

Top Senate Democrats had access to the same intelligence sources as Bush did (US Intelligence, British Intelligence, Israeli Intelligence, U.N. Intelligence). Charlie Wilson's War showed us that Congress sometimes is privy to even more intelligence sources than the President even. That kinda blows a huge whole in the 'Bush lied' excuse. Even if Bush was somehow able to lie to all the top Democrats, how stupid does that make them look- not getting independent verification?

Dems. who voted for the invasion include:

Clinton

Biden

Reid

Schumer

Bayh

Dodd

Feinstein

Rockefeller

Kerry

Hollings

Lieberman

Edwards

Virtually ALL of the most powerful people in the Dem. Party!

Only Ted Kennedy who was too drunk to know what was going on, voted against it.

Why do Democrats now act like they were always against the war in Iraq?

Update:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted...

Here's a nice liberal link for all you idiots that think I pulled those names out of my butt:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/who-voted...

16 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    libs claimed they were "lied" too, thus proving the weak intellect of the left wing!!!

    "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...

    It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well, effects American security.

    This is a very difficult vote, this is probably the hardest decision I've ever had to make. Any vote that might lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction."

    Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)

    Addressing the US Senate

    October 10, 2002

    "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."

    Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)

    Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq

    December 16, 1998

    "Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."

    Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)

    During an interview on "Meet The Press"

    November 17, 2002

    "There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.

    If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."

    Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate

    During an interview on "Face The Nation"

    September 29, 2002

    "We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."

    Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)

    Addressing the US Senate

    October 9, 2002

    Source(s): Read it and weep lib sheep!!!!!
    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Because there is little substantial difference between the parties. This was probably one of the few times were the government was clearly wrong, an opportunity existed to stand up for what was right, and the "opposition" politicians did what was popular and safe for their career instead. It reminds me of when Reid spoke out against the "mosque" in NYC before the elections last year. The American political system does not reward those who do the right thing, if it is unpopular, so we shouldn't really be surprised that those who win elections will not do the right thing when it is unpopular.

    If Bush did lie to them, they were very willing to go along with it and not ask difficult questions.

    The hypocrisy of Democrats doesn't change the fact that Bush and the other republicans behaved in a way that was grossly immoral as well.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    To be fair, they never voted to invade Iraq. Here's the distinction. The bill, "Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002," just gave the President the authority to go to war in Iraq. It wasn't a vote to go to war in Iraq.

    The reasoning at the time was that this bill would escalate things and put more pressure on Saddam to allow weapons inspectors in because the US would be one step closer to war. There was also plenty of language in the bill encouraging a diplomatic resolution via the UN.

    Also, there is no way the members of Congress have access to the same intelligence as the Executive branch. There is plenty of evidence that some misleading intelligence was stovepiped to members of Congress.

    BUT, in the big scheme of things, even if these members of Congress had all the same intelligence as the WH, and even if the bill was an outright call for war, I think these people would have probably voted for it anyway. But just making the distinction.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    After 6 months the war became unpopular and those Democrats have no integrity.

    Hillary's "If I knew then what I know now" line was pathetic considering She and Slick were beating the war drums on Iraq's WMD program before Bush came into office. Somehow claiming gullibility works on the Democrats.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    Same old thing they want that cash and afraid the voters would turn. If we took ut Saddam quick and everything went good they would be idiots. As it turned out we took them out quick which wasn't in doubt but winning the people has taken a long time. Stupid mistakes like not paying the army it's $40 a month didn't help. You know we ought to run the country. LOL

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Because the Intelligence services lied to the American People and should be investigated and dismantled.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Because Bush lied to the American people, he lied to the U.N and he lied to the Congress as well. I'm a liberal Democrat, hated Bush from day one, but he even had me convinced they were imminent threat.

    One more thing to Bush's legacy. He is the best liar in the world.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    Simple. They play to the lowest common denominator and knew they could get away with it because the media would never hold them accountable.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Remember the 'patriot' act ... 'you're either with us or you're agin us' .- it also scared the leaders of our allies who should have had more sense into not joining us in this pointless war ... !

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 10 years ago

    Had WMDs been found, they'd have probably taken the credit, gone on news shows telling everyone that they begged Bush to invade. Since they weren't found, they followed the polls.

    It's so very typical.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.