Are Repubs ignoring key facts when they say Hillary et al. voted for the War?

Question

Yes. They voted for the war based upon numerous assertions by the prez, chaney, rumsfeld, and Powell that were all either outright lies, a result of bad intelligence, bad analyzation, or plain stupidity.

I'm not sure any Demos would have voted for the war had they know the truth. For that matter, how many Repubs would have?

Come on, you "patriots" who think its unpatriotic to to question the prez (unless he's a democrat), would you stll have supported the Iraq war had you know then what you know now?

You neocons aren't aswering the last key question. Would you have supportec the vote for the war knowing what you know now? Probably no, but I've yet to see a Neocon with the "cojones" to admit that it was a mistake.

Matt W.

You are about the first rational individual I've read on these bulletin boards. It's a pleasure to read a reasoned answer instead of just spewing right wing rhetoric.

Answer 1

No, I would not have supported the war if I knew then what I know now. There are many other decisions that I would have made differently had I had the opportunity of the 20-20 hindsight.

My decision as to whether to support the war or not was based on the behavior of Saddam leading up to the war. He was acting exactly as a man who had a stockpile of WMDs would act. It was remarkably surprising to me to find that it was a bluff. It didn't help him at all, nor did it help Iraq or the US but it was obvious to me that his actions, in combination with the evidence presented pointed to an active searching for such weapons.

On the other hand, just like in my life, I do not quit trying to gain something from the situations I find myself in. I do not give up when the assumptions I use about a job or my kids, or my friends turn out to be wrong. I work through the issue and take my decision as something to be learned from and go on with my life.

So, I would not have supported the war if I had perfect information, but I wouldn't have made a different decision at the time given what we all knew. I would find myself still in Iraq trying to figure out the best next step, just as we are now.

Answer 2

Incorrect.
Let me tell you again, so it might sink into your thick skull.
Incorrect.
Oh, wait... one more time, just in case.
INCORRECT.

You and a bunch of your ilk have gone on and on about 'Bush lied' and you're wrong.
Dead wrong.

Hillary Rodham Clinton consulted HER HUSBAND'S intelligence people... not President Bush or his people. She made a statement that she and Bill KNEW Saddam had WMDs. It wasn't 'we think' it was 'we were aware' and Bill, himself, stated on no uncertain terms that Saddam would need to be dealt with back near the end of his presidency.
It's SO funny to me how revisionist you folks are with history when the facts don't suit your argument.
Hillary voted for the war because she KNEW there were WMDs. How's that for an inconvenient truth?
Considering it's on tape... believing her claim that Bush lied to her now requires a willing suspension of disbelief !

And as for supporting the war? Yes.
Why? Well, if you had any human decency and any knowledge of Saddam's reign of terror... you'd know why. We did a good thing taking out a dictator. We also created a better situation because Saddam would not have stopped in his pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Hopefully whatever regime takes power there doesn't share the desire to create these WMDs.

Now, what I think was done incorrectly... was the occupation.
Considering that the vast majority of our troubles there are coming over the borders from Iran and Syria, the strategy should have been to deploy the tank divisions along the borders and keep everyone out. Then use troops to train the Iraqis to handle insurgencies and bring the three primary groups... Shia, Sunni and Kurd, to the table to negotiate some kind of mutually beneficial government. Set a time limit for them to achieve this and help them where possible but leave it mostly up to them, since freedom is not appreciated when not worked for.

But for you to sit here and act like there was some kind of grand conspiracy to lie to the Democrats... well, you're just plain wrong... and it ruins your credibility when you make such outrageous claims.

Answer 3

No, they are not ignoring key facts. Hillary did vote in favor of using force to occupy Iraq, no matter what the reason. We will never know how many senators would have voted for the war absent the assertions by the administration, because that didn't happen. Hill-Hill thought that military force against Iraq was a good idea. Do you really think she only felt that way because of what the President, VP, Sec'y of Defense, and Sec'y of State said?

I believe in questioning all our leaders, and that dissent is the highest form of patriotism.

Answer 4

Yep nothing has changed because of the spin doctors.
Saddam was still busting his butt to come up with nukes as well as a super gun (to shoot shells 100s of miles).
whole sale slaughter was the rule of his day.
Spin docs say no WMDs and rightly so there were no more than 1500 artillery shells with sarin gas in them.
2500 + people per shell times 1500 but maybe that's not a real WMD
500 Tons of yellow cake uranium yeah its the raw unrefined stuff so it doesn't count either.

Unless you FEAR having to face the truth hit the links supplied below.
The truth is there for any that search.
Or you can follow blindly parroting what Dirty Harry and San Fran Nancy tell you until those left alive pray facing Mecca 5 times a day

Answer 5

No they are not. Democrats had access to the same intelligence as the administration and Hillary even admits to not reading the report before the vote.
I find it incredible and irresponsible on their part that they didn't even take the time to research the facts before they cast their vote on something so crucial to national security.

Saddam Hussein at one time did have weapons of mass destruction and did use them on his own people. Of course when he gassed th Kurds and the Iranians he was a U.S. ally.
He did refuse the weapons inspections that were a CONDITION OF THE TRUCE signed in the gulf war. He threw the inspectors out of his country.
THIS ALARMED BILL CLINTON ENOUGH TO BOMB BAGHDAD 2 YEARS BEFORE BUSH TOOK OFFICE.

The REAL debate in my view is whether we as a nation support PRE-EMPTIVE WAR .
In the furor over 911 many politicians were in a rush to be and to appear to be tough on terrorism or any threat (especially from muslims) to our security. Many saw our quick victory in Afghanistan as a sign that we were so powerful that no nation could resist us and so righteous that no one could hate us . Especially if we freed them from the clutches o Saddam.

Well we were half right. Our military defeated the Iraqi military in short order and their government was deposed. We made some missteps ( not the least of which was not learning about Iraqi society and culture BEFORE going in and creating a huge power vaccum) and Al-Qaida bombed a Shia mosque and now we are in a big mess.

Is pre-emptive war wrong? If you believe it is then you must hold those who voted to authorize it responsible REGARDLESS OF THEIR POLITICAL AFFILIATION.

If not then we must realize that intelligence is sometimes flawed and that WE SHOULD EXAMINE IT MORE CAREFULLY BEFORE GOING TO WAR.

Either way the Democrats failed us because they were supposed to be a part of a system of CHECKS AND BALANCES that should keep us out of messes like this.(the Republicans are just as responsible)

So yes everybody is playing politics with this but that doesn;t let the Democrats off the hook.

Answer 6

"Repubs" are not ignoring the facts when they say Hillary et al voted for the war - and,for what it's worth, before she tested the political waters prior to campaigning - she also supported the war long after the initial vote.
The mandate to oust Saddam was initiated in Bill Clinton's last term - apparently, he was too concerned with his legacy to bother actually doing anything about it.
Hindsight is always 20/20 - I doubt anyone would have voted to invade Iraq had we known what we know now - but at the time and following the events of 9/11, it was far too risky to ASSUME that Saddam no longer possessed any chemical arsenals - arsenals that inevitably would have funneled themselves into the hands of AlQaeda.

Answer 7

Sorry, but you're dead wrong. The intelligence the Libs went on, or the biggest part of went way back into the Clinton administration. Read Hillary's quote carefully, taking specific attention to the dates/time lines, Libby.


“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


I most certainly would support the war. Saddam was a ticking time bomb, a threat to everyone. I hope we nuke the holy poop out of Iran next.

Answer 8

Are you ignoring the key fact that the democrats had access to the EXACT same information that the president had, had been briefed on much the same thing and could have had a confidential security briefing of their own by the CIA and NSA at any time? That if they were ignorant that their ignorance is no one's fault but their own?

Must you be reminded of Hillary's words, Bill Clinton's words, John Kerry's words, Al Gore's words?

The following is a transcript of what Hillary said to Code Pink. Granted, it's partisan, but her words ARE her words.

So, sorry you 'patriot' you, but you're the one ignoring facts.

Oh, to answer your question, if they'd had the benefit of 20/20 hindsight like you, probably not. But the reality is, they did not. The problem is, no one ever does. Not even the president. Funny how that works, huh?

Answer 9

How do you expect me to know the future except from past experience?
1. Saddam did have chemical weapons (I dislike everyone calling it WMD's)
2. Cease fire agreement called for witnesses to the weapons
3. Saddam failed to comply with the UN resolution concerning the disposal of the weapons
4. Where the Chemical Weapons are now is uncertain

When you have evidence as to where the weapons went get back to me. What is known has not changed since Congress approved the use of force.

Answer 10

I suggest you do a little more homework.
It wasn't only Bush but many democrats who also believe that saddam pose a threat.
Look here for some of them.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp

I am also not ingoring the fact that Hillary called a general a liar.

That she found Media Matters who twist quotes around to smear anyone or anything in her path.