Why did so many high-ranking Democrats originally insist the invasion of Iraq was necessary?

Question

And why are they now trying to pretend they never said any such thing?

There is no doubt that... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is using and developing weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons...
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.
John Kerry (D, MA) 10/9/02

There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

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.
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. [W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Answer 1

GASP! A question actually backed with legitimate facts!?

Because they see that the people of the US are not happy. Not all people, but their Democratic constituency. And because the Republicans are in majority, it is much easier for the Dems to just point fingers, in an attempt to regain control of the Government. It is much easier to condemn than to defend...

Answer 2

These are some great quotes! Obviously the Democrats are trying to distance themselves from these comments because the war has become unpopular and it is much easier (politically) to say "I am against the war" than it is to say "I was in favor of the war but I believe we made these specific strategic errors and here's my plan for how we are going to fix it." It is always easier to walk away from a mess than to do the hard work of cleaning up a mess.
In my opinion these are the mistakes we made:
1) Not enough troops (should have followed an overwhelming force Powell doctrine as opposed to the fast and light Rumsfeld doctrine, or we should have readjusted to this strategy when it bacame clear that we were not going to be in and out in a month or less)
2) De-Baathification and disbanding of the army should have focused more selectively on the elite of the Baath party and senior officer class. The result of the way these CPA orders were carried out was to disenfranchise the people who knew how to run civil society along with thousands of armed soldiers who suddenly became unemployed.
3) Failure to engage the American public. The American people were not asked to participate or sacrifice for the war effort but to serve as spectators. Spectators only cheer for the winning team, but people that are emotionally invested in the success of Iraq would have been willing to hear bad news and still work for victory.
4) A policy of denying problems and mistakes rather than admitting to them quickly and openly and presenting a plan to fix them caused the administration to lose credibility.

The American people lost confidence in the war because the Bush administration thought it could win a cheap and easy victory and never fully placed the long term transformation of the Middle East above short term political considerations. As a result, Democrats will win this election, the troops will come home, Iraqis will be abandoned and left to their fate, and the percepetion that America policy is anti-Muslin and that we do not stand by our friends when the times get tough will be reinforced in the Arab world.

Answer 3

OK, i understand that we all wanted justice for the attacks on 911 and that something needed to be done about terrorist across the world...but, how did invading Iraq help? Not one of the 911 hijackers was from Iraq, most were from Saudi Arabia, why didn't we invade that country? The Bush family has business ties with the Saudi Royal Family and had a plan for an invasion of Iraq with the 1st Bush administration. It should be investigated, if for no other reason then the truth.

2ND, at the time of the attacks, the US government was experiencing an unprecedented unity between both parties...we all had faith in the President to do the right thing...and he failed...admit it, that situation is something we should have learned to avoid 30 years ago ...you can't force your politics on people and do we really have the kind of money it takes to invade countries and set up not just a new government but an entire infrastructure?

And even if we did...would that stop terrorism?

And most importantly... why haven't we found Osama Bin Laden? I can't defend the old cowboy on that one...he promised he'd bring him in dead or alive...and he still breaths the same free air we do.

For all the good Bush could have done...with his immigrant and boarder reform plans, privatizing social security...let's face it, we made a mistake, He was in charge...it's his bed to lie in...can't blame the Dem's for pointing that out.

Obama in 08!

Answer 4

Can it be that the Democrats who supported the war back then were political hacks ? They saw a bandwagon coming along

and hopped on it...maybe it seemed their constituents were delusional as well and panicked into supporting this war by Bush Admin propaganda. At least some of them are following their constituants now who have soured on this quagmire and no longer support it. I suppsose the butcher's bill is starting to get costly.

Answer 5

People were going off the best information they had at the time, and in fact, passed that information along. It bothers me that they deny it now, and attack because of it. Wouldn't it be refreshing if anyone could say, "Yep, we thought he was a bad guy too." I still think the lack of action from the previous president and the UN allowed Saddam to get rid of, sell or hide his weapons. Call me crazy, but I think they ended up somewhere, and I do think they existed.

Answer 6

More American navel gazing. I'm Canadian. It is so easy to see that most of you yanks need to educate yourselves about the rest of the planet because you are pissing off too many people by violating international laws, covenants and agreements. Start with this. The United Nation's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights".
It's a big planet. Stop looking internally so much! And if your friends can't tell you who can? Al Qaeda was trying to tell you something weren't they?

Answer 7

i went along with the war cause the CIA said it was a slam dunk no we all feel like idiots! i finally on the same page as heraldo Rivera we should hold an election in Iraq do you want us to stay and help you people or get the *** out it really is that simple!!!!!

Answer 8

you don't need an answer you need a lecture.so they said these things,that does not mean you go to war when you don't have a clue as to how to wage war.Especially one lake this.

Answer 9

The Israeli lobby run both parties. The Iraq war is an Israeli lobby war history will show that fact

Answer 10

Is all of this supposed to prove that Bush hasn't ****** it up the way he has?