If dems who voted for the War Authorization had "correct" intel that there was no WMD's in Iraq...

Question

...would they still have voted to authorize Bush to use force?

Answer 1

Pre-War Quotes from Democrats


"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998. *

"Together we must also confront the new hazards of chemical and biological weapons, and the outlaw states, terrorists and organized criminals seeking to acquire them. Saddam Hussein has spent the better part of this decade, and much of his nation's wealth, not on providing for the Iraqi people, but on developing nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and the missiles to deliver them."
President Clinton, Jan. 27, 1998. *

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeleine Albright, Feb 18, 1998. *

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998. *

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998. *

"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."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998. *

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeleine Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999. *

"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 away 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002. *

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. 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."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002. *

"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 Rockefeller (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.
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002. *

"Without 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 is miscalculating America's response to his 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. *....SOUND LIKE THE STILL WOULD HAVE..

Answer 2

Yes probably.I look at this this way.The dramatic, much-debated vote on Joint Resolution 114 was taken on October 11, 2002. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 23, and the House of Representatives by a vote of 296 to 133.
In the end, 156 members of Congress from 36 states had enough information and personal insight and wisdom to make the correct decision for our national and the world community.

The people who voted against are they some sort of geniuses?Or just courageous enough to not buy the propaganda?I think the latter.If they knew the other Democrats could have known as well.They CHOOSE to look the other way.Check out this analysis of the Joint Resolution on Iraq before the war by Dennis Kucinich.
http://www2.kucinich.us/files/pdfs/Oct2002Analysis.pdf
Is he really a genius?If he and others knew,what stopped the others from knowing?Not the intelligence,Kucinich had the same access.Democrats who voted for that resolution did so because it was popular at that time and they failed to stand up to Bush in a post September eleven climate.Bush clearly did everything to mislead people but congress could and should have known.
That some did proofs that beyond reasonable doubt.
The Bush administration is also solely responsible for the reckless and disastrous way they used the authorization

Answer 3

Hindsight?
If we knew then what we know now would things be different?

If you accept that WMD was the only reason we went there the answer is; Nobody would have voted for it because it wouldn't have come to a vote at all.
There wouldn't have been 13 THIRTEEN resolutions from the UN threatening force.
Instead we would be talking about why the US and Canada are the only forces in Afghanistan with bullets.
During the 2006 elections we would have been talking about how Bush mucked that up, or the morality of invading Afghanistan and having the audacity to prevent school children from being shot by the Taliban and rape victims being stoned to death or jamming democracy down the throats of those poor people.
After all, the Taliban didn't attack us, did they?
The only legitimate target is Osama, right?

Answer 4

No, and neither would anyone else, including Republicans. That was the big story, the one that got the ball rolling. Without it, Bush was dead in the water on going into Iraq. There would have been no need for a resolution giving him so much power. Clearly we can see just how important that intel was when he used the yellow cake intel in his 2003 SOTU Address, already knowing the CIA had found out it was bogus. He knew exactly what his intentions rested on, and he used it shamelessly, even knowing the intel wasn't true.

Answer 5

If a frog had air cushions it wouldn't bump its ash every time it jumped.

HeII if Bush had good Intel he probably wouldn't have gone in. That's what happens when you are stuck with Intel from foreign governments, especially when some of it is French. Keep in mind, from President Reagan or before all the Presidents have spouted the same rhetoric and as far as that goes the UN echoed it.

I'll tell you the truth, I'm satisfied he did have them. A 55 gallon drum could contain enough stuff to kill the whole population of the world. In a place as large as California and with 14 months to do it, I think I could hide a 55 gallon drum well enough that no one could find it. Drone aircraft and camouflaged mobile labs with hidden compartments, if nothing else he had ample means to make it and a method of delivery. Some of us could cook up something in our back yard that would do the job. Biological and Chemical weapons are a poor man's nukes.

Answer 6

Probably not--and some Republicans might not have, either. The main reasoning given to them at the time was that the president needed authorization in order to use that as a bargaining chip in his efforts to uncover the truth about Iraq's WMD's. Many Dem's have said that if Iraq hadn't been presented as an immediate threat to the USA, they would never have given the president his authorization.

Answer 7

Bush and his administration have been people who led the cost to conflict with Iraq, taking finished benefit of the political climate of the time, wherein many a spineless Democrat grow to be so petrified of being perceived as susceptible on nationwide secure practices that they had vote or perhaps clamor for something that grow to be dressed up as area of the conflict on terror. you could certainly discover many that voted for it, you will be able to as nicely detect some who hyped up their chests and have been given in on the banging of the conflict drums, yet you're ******* delusional to argue that they by some ability pushed Bush into it.

Answer 8

Vaughn - very good answer. The stupid thing about all that is that the President doesn't need authorization from Congress to attack someone anyway. And you know Bush would have attacked even if Congress voted no.

Answer 9

No.

But the main issue is that WMD are in the future of every 3rd world nation, and that few of those nations will be able to adequately secure their stockpiles.

You could have military takeovers, coups, civil wars, corrupt dictators, mad ayatollas and all kinds to stuff happen.

If the 3rd world gets nukes = terrorists will have nukes = a Western city will go "bye-bye"

That's the issue at stake.

Answer 10

Dont know.

I know that America was not alone in its assessment that Iraq had WMD's. The fact that they have not been found does not mean they did not have them.

Hind sight is always 20/20. It was Sadams responsibility to prove that he had destroyed his arsenal and he didn't.

It was the UN's responsibility to follow through on its own mandates. They didnt.

Answer 11

Hillary was just asked a similar question not too long ago and she said that she would have authorized force no matter what because it was her understanding that Bush could use this authorization as leverage in negotiations with Saddam. She went on to criticize Bush for just going ahead and using force without negotiating.

I believe she is full of crap, but I hope this answers your question.