At what point ever did democrats in senate ok the invading of Iraq based on lies told to them also by Bush?

Question

"I Can Support The President, I Can Support An Action Against Saddam Hussein Because I Think It's In The Long-Term Interests Of Our National Security..." (Sen. Hillary Rodham NBC's "Meet The Press," 9/15/02)
"Saddam Hussein Certainly Has Chemical And Biological Weapons. There's No Question About That." (Rep. Nancy Pelosi, NBC's "Meet The Press," 11/17/02)
"Saddam Hussein, In Effect, Has Thumbed His Nose At The World Community. And I Think That The President's Approaching This In The Right Fashion." (Sen. Reid
CNN's "Inside Politics," 9/18/02)
Saddam Hussein Is A Dangerous Figure. He’s Got Dangerous Weapons.” (Sen.Ted Kennedy CBS’ “Face The Nation,” October 6, 2002)
It took more then a speech of lies to get these democrats to believe what Bush believed, and it takes more then just a speech to convince me that they are any less to blame then Bush, the only difference now is they deny it, and by their promises to withdraw our troops does not in anyway make them less to blame.

It only makes Bush appear more honest, so continue to justify the democrats actions any way you want, it can never change the facts.

Democrats are more to blame then Bush, agreeing on a war without facts, just words from a President is so much worse, then admitting to having the facts.

Answer 1

Congressmen generally had enough information to doubt the accuracy of the things the Bush administration was saying.

The main effect of Bush's speech in the middle of the week that the Senate was debating whether to authorize the invasion was to fool the public and create an atmosphere where it would take extreme courage for a Congressman to vote against the war.

There's not a whole lot of speeches in the House, but you could tell by the Senate speeches that a lot of Senators knew their vote for the invasion was wrong.

Answer 2

I see that you have a divided opinion on this, and I do too. If they were lied to repeatedly "It took more then a speech of lies to get these democrats to believe what Bush believed" then they were not to blame for their votes, because their conclusions were reasonable. The fact is that most members of Congress did NOT have access to the SAME intelligence as Bush. It is a lie when the administration says that they did. Congressional leaders, including Pelosi and some committee chairs and senior members were given more information, and perhaps they knew enough to conclude this this was truly a trumped up case for the invasion. But still they did not have access to the same information and intelligence as Bush.

I'm not saying Congress is not somewhat to blame for authorizing the invasion because there was certainly some evidence that Saddam was not the threat he was being portrayed to be. The action against Saddam was also contrary to the prior policy of the US which was that we did not start a war unless there was an attack or the imminent threat of one. However, there are degrees of blame, and surely the parties whose idea this war was, and who trumped up the evidence for it, are far more to blame than Congress who approved an invasion which was already being staged.

To answer your main question: "At what point ever did democrats in senate ok the invading of Iraq based on lies" It was on the date that they authorized the war.

Another question to consider is what did they think they were authorizing, and this is directly relevant to your question on whether Congress is to blame. I believe most thought they were okaying a short war, a war of limited duration, where the US would find and destroy the WMD, and support and perhaps install a new leader, and then leave. I believe this was their belief because that's how recent US Presidents, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Clinton had conducted such wars, and that's how the Bush administration described its plans at the time. If that's what they agreed to, a short war, then they cannot be fully blamed for what the Bush administration did after the invasion -- dismantling the entire government, dismissing the army and police, closing factories and businesses which were owned by the Saddam government... etc. These are all things the US had not done since its foray into imperialism in the 19th and early 20th centuries, and Congress did not know of these plans nor did it authorize a long term occupation which resulted from this complete take over by the US.

Answer 3

i know approximately those statements by the Democrats. The statements are on YouTube beginning with bill Clinton in 1998. The Democrats have quite some chutzbah to declare that Bush lied on the subject of the WMD's.

Answer 4

January 09, 2004
THIS SEEMS LIKE A BLOW TO THE "BUSH LIED" CROWD:
Former US president Bill Clinton said in October during a visit to Portugal that he was convinced Iraq had weapons of mass destruction up until the fall of Saddam Hussein, Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso said.
"When Clinton was here recently he told me he was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime," he said in an interview with Portuguese cable news channel SIC Noticias.
This is consistent with the other members Congress and Clinton statements on the subject, of course, going back to 1998. But this does blow the popular Bush-made-it-up theory.

The federal government for days had warned Lousiana of the potentially devastating effects of a hurricane slamming into their coast. These warnings went largely ignored. When Katrina hit, both the mayor of New Orleans (Ray Nagin, Democrat) and the governor of Lousiana (Kathleen Blanco,Democrat again) cried foul, and started their finger pointing over their lack of prepaired strategy, and blamed Mr. Bush. Huh? Even though the brunt of the storm hit Mississippi, you don't hear many complaints of how the governor (Haley Barbour, Republican) handled the situation, do you?

The ability to wiretap by certain authorities under certain circumstances was done by a blessing from a signature on a law that was enacted by none other than Bill Clinton. Really.

Terrorists. Do you think this situation should be treated lightly? Bobby Kennedy, then attorney general (Democrat) ordered a focus on white southern men only in an effort to combat civil unrest in the south. Why is this not called racial profiling, yet efforts by the current administration to battle terrorism are?

WMD- In 2002, CIA director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) was asked by Mr. Bush point blank about Saddam's WMD. Mr. Tenet replied that it was a "slam-dunk". Now, if you are the President, and the director of the CIA tells you WMD exist and you do not act on it, what in God's name would happen to your credibility when Iraq levels Chicago with a nuclear weapon? Sorry, but if anyone is the blame for this invasion, blame Bill Clinton.

Answer 5

Bush responded to questions concerning the necessity and urgency of an attack on Iraq with dire warnings such as:

“Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

The “yellow cake uranium” that was allegedly sought by Iraq for nuclear weapons was a lie that was later debunked by Joe Wilson.

The threat pushed by Bush was that Iraq would use nuclear weapons and therefore we couldn’t wait for further proof or review. We couldn’t even wait for the UN inspectors to finish their inspections.

The Bush administration pushed continuously for approval to use force and constantly linked Iraq with terrorism and 9/11. Many fell for that deception and they now regret it.

Answer 6

okay, so the DEMOCRATS in congress are to blame for putting their trust in the people who had the obligation to give them honest information but were, in fact, lying through their teeth? do you honestly believe that any speech by bush was the reason for their votes? the cheney/bush administration used every resource they could to advance their lies...not just in speeches...every briefing that the administration gave to congressional leaders were nothing more than the same lies, over and over-they passed these lies on to other nations, and when the other nations cited what our administration told them, cheney/bush said, "see there? the other nations of the world have intelligence leading to the same conclusion we did!" and we cited the 'intel' we had passed to them as if it was something they came up with on their own! heck, they even took their fraudulent case to the u.n. security council, complete with forged documents! sorry to burst your little bubble, but this debacle in iraq is completely the product of the cheney/bush/wolfowitz/chalabi/rumsfeld lie machine...

Answer 7

First, there is a HUGE difference between voting to go to Iraq to depose Saddam, and then deciding to stay in Iraq for 4+ years AFTER Mission Accomplished.

All of the quotes you list deal with going into Iraq to depose Saddam. Fine. Done. Mission Accomplished.

That has NOTHING to do with agreeing to stay there for years or decades afterwards. And just because people may have voted for one, doesn't mean they support the other.

And yes, for the umpteen-hundredth time -- the vote to go into Iraq had lots of people from both parties, and was legal. The occupation of Iraq is not illegal. That doesn't mean it's a good idea, and that doesn't people people can't change their minds about whether we should continue.

Why is this distinction so difficult for people to grasp? And why do people assume that just because something was a good idea 5 years ago, it's still a good idea now with everything that has changed in those five years?

Answer 8

There week kneed Liberals who did not want to be seen as soft on terrorism as they have been perceived as week on crime.It was a big Mistake and I will never forgive them for it.

I have to look past it for the betterment of our nation and hope they gain full power in the coming elections.There are to many things that need to be set wright to cast them aside at this pivotal moment in this Nations History.

Answer 9

Seems pretty clear to me.