isnt it true that democrats voted and gave bush the power to attack iraq.?

Answer 1

Yes, but they claim to have been lied to, even though they had read the same intel report Bush did.

Answer 2

The typical framing is: "Democrats got the same intelligence and reached the same conclusion, so blaming Bush for misleading America is purely political."

There is a false assumption underlying this argument, namely that Dems received the same intel as Bush (they didn't), but setting that aside, here are two reasons why this is a straw man:

a) The issue is not whether people believed Saddam had WMD (many did), or whether there was any evidence that he had WMD (there was), it's the fact that Bush and his administration made an absolute, unconditional case with the evidence at hand, brooking no dissent and dismissing doubters inside and outside the government as cowardly or treasonous. That's what "manipulating the intelligence" and "misleading the public" refers to, the knowing exaggeration of the case for war (whether by cherry-picking intel or using defunct intel or by speaking about ambiguous intel in alarming absolutes). There we were, more than a decade after the first gulf war, two years after 9/11, and Saddam hadn’t attacked us, he hadn’t threatened to attack us. And then suddenly, he was the biggest threat to America. A threat that required a massive invasion. A bigger threat than Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Bin Laden. A HUGE, IMMEDIATE threat. It simply defied belief.

b) In addition to the fear-mongering described above, the contention that Bush 'misled' the public is not simply about Saddam's WMD, but about the way the administration stormed ahead with their plans and invaded Iraq in the way they did, at the time they did, with the Pollyannaish visions they fed the world, all the while demonizing dissent and smearing their critics.

In both (a) and (b), the crux of the issue is proportionality. Whether or not Bill Clinton or France or the U.N. believed Saddam was a threat, the administration's apocalyptic words and drastic actions (preemptively invading a sovereign nation) were decidedly out of proportion to the level and immediacy of the threat. THAT is the issue.

Answer 3

Yes, many of them did, on the argument that there were WMD's in Iraq. We can't know with absolute certainty whether Bush actually did (or didn't) have the same intel they did. But once we defeated Saddam Hussein (which we did pretty quickly) -- at that point, Bush was already in Iraq and Congress couldn't stop him making things worse for another three years.

At least now Congress is trying to repair some of the worse mistakes made in that first year of shock after 9/11.

Answer 4

At the time of the original invasion, it was political suicide to contest America's "war against terrorism;" even against Iraq.

Anyone who spoke out against the war was severely ostracized. Doesn't anyone remember the controversy surrounding statements made by the Dixie Chicks and Michael Moore? These people were treated like traitors against this country for speaking their mind concerning their stance against the war in Iraq. For a person in politics to make such statements at that time would have effectively ended his/her career.

Further, the intelligence at the time stated that Iraq had nuclear weapons, or WMD. Now that we know the information was unreliable, several politicians have stated they would not have supported the war if they had known the intelligence was unreliable.

Thus, due to misinformation disseminated at the time, and the political climate as well, many Democrats joined with the Republicans and ratified Bush's position on attacking Iraq.

Except for Al Gore. Gore for 2008.

Answer 5

The way the system is set up, the President can deploy military personnel anywhere he wants. Congress then votes on whether or not they can stay. Congress, including many democrats, voted for us to stay.

Clinton signed the Iraqi Liberation Bill back in 1998. He just didn't fllow through on it.

Answer 6

They are part of congress, so yes. However they were going off of information that has turned out to be false. Can we blame anyone, Democrat or Republican for "oking" the invasion of Iraq with that wrong information?

Answer 7

Bush and company lied and said they had proof of Hussein's possession of WMD. The congress was NOT given the same intel.

Answer 8

Yes.
Who cares now, we have a situation that will take the best of American minds to resolve.
If you are a democrat, republican, who cares. America has to come together!
I repeat...
AMERICA MUST COME TOGETHER!!!!!!!!
The world may hate as it will.
When the world has become lost, they depend on America, because America depends on God!

Answer 9

Yes but, they have forgotten that part, and as Dem's, they flip flop, and try to destroy the Gov. by making up B.S., like "Bush is doing this to avenge the threat on his father's life", Bush senior could have mopped the floor with "Saddam Insane" if he wanted to, or "Bush is just in this to make money on oil" Yet nobody can explain "HOW HE DOES THIS", by invading a country that only produces 12% of the regions oil production, is it AMERICA'S Fault we gave them an "OIL MARKET", and their leaders steal all of their money for themselves, How is this AMERICA'S FAULT ? !

Answer 10

Yes, that is 100% true.