General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhy this sudden push to rewrite history about the Iraq war?
Here we are, nearly a decade after the start of Shock n Awe, and the push is apparently on to rewrite history, to say that the people in this country were somehow tricked into war, or sold a bill of bad goods. That simply isn't true.
The plain truth of the matter is that most of the people in this country wanted to go to war with Iraq. They wanted to vent their rage about 911 on somebody in some large fashion. They wanted to go after that evil man Saddam who apparently ate babies and BBQ'ed puppies. They wanted to do something to assuage their hyper fear, a product of 911, and the best way they thought to do it was to drown it in blood.
We weren't tricked. There were millions of us speaking the truth at the time, out in the streets protesting, writing, broadcasting, demonstrating in every way we knew how the truth about the ongoing rush to war with Iraq. Not just here on DU, not just a relatively few anti-war activists, but literally millions around the world.
Commentators on various non-Fox networks were laying out the truth about Iraq. Writers were publishing everything from LTTE all the way up to full fledged books denouncing the build up to the Iraq war. We were informed, we knew what was going on. But the majority of folks in this country at the time decided that they have to vent their fear, rage and xenophobia upon some innocent country, and Iraq was the perfect target.
We had already engaged in military action with Iraq twelve years previous. Throughout the nineties all we heard about was how bad Iraq and Hussein was, thus building them up as some sort of international bogeyman. Never mind that Iraq was prostrate from our sanctions, never mind that we were doing thrice weekly bombing runs over Iraq all through Clinton's term, the Mighty Wurlitzer of government and corporate propaganda cranked out the hatred for twelve long years. Iraq was primed and ready to serve as the sacrificial goat to be laid on the altar of American's fear and rage.
But we weren't tricked, we weren't uninformed. What the majority of American people in this country did was to simply ignore the truth in favor of venting their rage and fear upon the innocents of Iraq. This isn't the fault of the media, this isn't the fault of Bush, this is the fault of every single American who turned off their centers of higher reason, and instead listened to their base emotions of fear and anger.
It happened here. I distinctly remember getting into debates with DUer's about going to war with Iraq. These people knew the truth, but wanted to go in anyway because Saddam was "evil".
It happened in Congress, a group of people who are the most informed on the planet decided to ignore their own good judgment and line up behind the President. The IWR(god, a long time since I used that acronym), got a large cushion of support from the Democrats, though not a majority(81 Dems voted for, 126 against). However in the Senate, that same grouped that streamed out onto the steps of the capital to publicly recite the Pledge of Allegiance after having just voted to institute the draconian Patriot Act, the majority of Democrats did indeed vote for the IWR(28 Yes, 22 No), including such folks as Biden, Clinton and Kerry. In fact there were debates for years on this board about whether or not to support those who supported the war. Some got primaried, some got promoted up the ladder.
None of those people were tricked, and neither was the American public. To try and rewrite history saying that we were tricked is a heinous crime. It is a cover up of an ugly fact, that Americans, in their rage and fear, reverted to their jingoistic, xenophobic roots, and gladly supported the killing of innocents. By trying to paper this over all we're doing is denying our nature as a country. Better the ugly truth be out there, so that we can examine it and, hopefully, overcome it. That will make for a better future for all.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)You remember wrong, then
MadHound
(34,179 posts)It is all there for anybody to see.
Response to MadHound (Reply #6)
Post removed
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)
MuseRider
(35,172 posts)Oh that's right, we should all agree totally and without question even when our guts and brains are screaming against agreement.
Discord is essential.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)The OP is correct, there were Bush Administrator sympathizers with blood lust in their eyes.
George II
(67,782 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)My post is true to the OPs intent.
George II
(67,782 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
George II
(67,782 posts)Most certainly was true - the most compelling reason to go to war was to eliminate Iraq's WMD, which we found out didn't exist. We were sold a bill of goods.
"The plain truth of the matter is that most of the people in this country wanted to go to war with Iraq. They wanted to vent their rage about 911 on somebody in some large fashion"
Absolutely not true - many KNEW that al Qaeda perpetrated that attack and also KNEW that al Qaeda was not operating in Iraq and that Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda were mortal enemies.
"There were millions of us speaking the truth at the time, out in the streets protesting, writing, broadcasting, demonstrating in every way we knew how the truth about the ongoing rush to war with Iraq. Not just here on DU, not just a relatively few anti-war activists, but literally millions around the world."
True, but that contradicts the underlying premise of this post.
"Commentators on various non-Fox networks were laying out the truth about Iraq. Writers were publishing everything from LTTE all the way up to full fledged books denouncing the build up to the Iraq war. We were informed, we knew what was going on. But the majority of folks in this country at the time decided that they have to vent their fear, rage and xenophobia upon some innocent country, and Iraq was the perfect target."
That too is totally false. There were some who wanted to vent, but the majority did not AND the majority relied on lies fed them by Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (who admitted it after leaving the administration), Cheney, and bush.
"But we weren't tricked, we weren't uninformed."
Wrong, we were tricked by bing MISinformed, not "uninformed".
It happened here. I distinctly remember getting into debates with DUer's about going to war with Iraq. These people knew the truth, but wanted to go in anyway because Saddam was "evil".
"It happened in Congress, a group of people who are the most informed on the planet decided to ignore their own good judgment and line up behind the President."
Their source of information, being "informed", was fed to them by the bush administration.
"None of those people were tricked, and neither was the American public. To try and rewrite history saying that we were tricked is a heinous crime. It is a cover up of an ugly fact, that Americans, in their rage and fear, reverted to their jingoistic, xenophobic roots, and gladly supported the killing of innocents."
The OP's final insult to Americans who unfortunately trusted their government and the information that government provided. "Cover up"? Ludicrous and offensive.
Finally, "agree to disagree"? That's the oft-used term to say "you're right, I'm wrong, but I'm not admitting it"
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
George II
(67,782 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
George II
(67,782 posts)
shcrane71
(1,721 posts)Those were dark, dark days. I even remember Christopher Hitchens in The Nation being hawking for an Iraqi invasion.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)that even before 911 the neocons were chomping at the bit to invade Iraq, most notably the PNAC reference to needing another pearl harbor. So when voilà!, they pulled an excuse to invade Iraq out of their backside, I knew that it would be pure theater from that point forward.
Gary 50
(483 posts)You are right. Excellent rebuttal. The American people were fed a steady stream of lies from the Bush administration, the Republican party and their corporate sponsors. The public was angry and wanted someone to pay for the atrocity that was 9/11. That anger and fear was used by the Bushies and directed toward Saddam Hussein. We were told the outrageous lie that Saddam was in league with Al Qaeda and had a hand in their terrorist activities. The perpetrators of this crime should be doing hard time. Instead, cretins like John McCain act like the lying war mongers did God's bidding in unleashing hell on earth and anyone against the insanity of totally unnecessary war was a fool. Bottom line, the American people were duped by an evil cabal know as the neocons. They are, without any doubt, the greatest threat to our peace, prosperity, and freedom, a virtual cancer of the body politic. They have inflicted more harm on our country than Al Qaeda could ever dream of.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)DonB
(53 posts)You may have been been sure, as was I, but thanks to the Goebbels like effort on the part of the henchmen and hench-women in the little "w" administration, something like 65% of the country bought into their well orchestrated propaganda campaign. For Christ's sake, Americans were sold the bill of goods, and the majority bought, the fantasy that Saddam was a participant in the 911 attacks. If you couple that with the bush administrations ongoing campaign of fear, people had little time to get their bearings, even if they wanted to. Yes, a majority of the media, which was even then, packaged infotainment, went along but there were still great outliers, such as McClatchy, doing what media was supposed to do. Not everyone had access to hem and they were buried by the participatory infotainment outlets and a despicable bush administration con job - or as many would say "Putting the CON in CONservative and rethugliCON!"
You may know everything that there is to know about the selling of the Iraq war, but I say "We can never know enough about this Tragedy of Mass Destruction propagated and carried out by the war criminals in the bush administration! Rachel, You Go Girl!".
Finally, the comment I saw in a trailer for the show by General Zinni, was completely new to me, and I had thought I knew pretty much everything about what had happened in the buildup. But as for rewriting history, please remember, History has always been written by the victors, let's get together on this and make sure that the neocons are remembered as they should be, an ideological pack of greedy corporatist warmongers trying to wage a war of choice to make their mark on the history of the world. There are a lot of people that fought, weer injured, and families of those who died that never want to believe that they or there loved ones fought, were injured, and died for nothing but the egos of a pitiful group of petty men and women.
riverbendviewgal
(4,396 posts)Robert Greenwald'd 2004 documentary. was an excellent analysis that it was a fabrication. ..I bought the dvd in late 2003...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncovered:_The_War_on_Iraq
[edit]Interviewees
David Albright, Robert Baer, Milt Bearden, Rand Beers, Bill Christison, David Corn, Philip Coyle, John Dean, Patrick Eddington, Chas Freeman, Graham Fuller, Mel Goodman, Larry Johnson, David Kay, John Brady Kiesling, Karen Kwiatkowski, Patrick Lang, David C. MacMichael, Ray McGovern, Scott Ritter, Clare Short, Stanfield Turner, Henry Waxman, Thomas E. White, Joseph C. Wilson, Mary Ann Wright, Peter Zimmerman
Tumbulu
(6,625 posts)and what we still need to do.
Sekhmets Daughter
(7,515 posts)I agree, most were fooled. It always amazes me that DUers think they represent the majority when it comes to information. Americans have a long history of ignoring the opinions of the rest of the world..."millions marching all over the world" cuts little ice with the majority of Americans.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)They were in a tiny minority. Extremely tiny.
Rhiannon12866
(252,830 posts)We moved to DU.2 on July 6, 2003. The lead up to the war happened before March. 
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)A majority of people admitted they believed the lies presented to them. If the truth as we now know it had prevailed I believe a majority of Americans would have rejected the Iraq war.
The MSM and the Bush/Cheney war profiteers used lies and propaganda to sway the public yet you insinuate we were all just wanting revenge rather than justice, protection and safety...and youy base it on the loudmouth opinions of the few when in fact anyone opposing the war idea was presented as a traitor and un-American by the media and the neocons.
We are not safe coating anything or smoothing over our anger and rage. We are merely finding out the truth about those who mislead us.
Why would you even post such a stretched vision?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)As do you, I do not like that notion in the OP that DU somehow thought the war in Iraq was a good thing.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)You are being disingenuous in accusing me of saying that "DU somehow thought the war in Iraq was a good thing."
You either need to prove your contention, apologize, or look like a complete ass. Take your choice.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)You put words on the page, and people interpret them. If my interpretation is incorrect, just correct me. Your attack is hardly convincing and somewhat symptomatic of someone who just realized their argument is on thin ice.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)YOU go back to DU v.1 and get some screenshots.
I was here back then. I remember some DU'ers falling for it. And some who thought it was a lie but difficult to counter politically.
I also remember huge protests across America and petitions.
Democracyinkind
(4,015 posts)
Festivito
(13,866 posts)And, under a post about re-writing history no less.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I participated in those arguments and remember them well.
Response to MadHound (Original post)
trumad This message was self-deleted by its author.
we can do it
(13,015 posts)George II
(67,782 posts)
patricia92243
(12,974 posts)we can do it
(13,015 posts)Response to we can do it (Reply #3)
Dash87 This message was self-deleted by its author.
Paladin
(32,354 posts)alarimer
(17,146 posts)Except the part about DU. I remember some people shilling for it, but the majority, or at least a very vocal minority were definitely opposed and out there protesting.
Of course the American people wanted war (most of them). One, Americans are easily swayed by patriotic rhetoric, no matter how false. This is likely true of just about any country. Two, a very, very vocal minority yelled loud enough to convince everyone else. Three, no Democratic politician (or very few) had the guts to oppose the war. What we had instead were the usual spineless weasels like Lieberman all over our TV making the case for Bush and Co. warmongering. Fourth, media complicity, especially Fox News.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)But there was a very vocal contingent in favor of going to war.
raccoon
(32,307 posts)having to go and fight.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)It serves as a good reminder for possible future war to not foam at the mouth about invading other countries and killing people and reflect on what war has done to our Nation, our troops, our economy, and the Nation's we wage war on. Maybe in the future people will rethink.
we've been down this road so many times before and have learned nothing. "Remember the Maine" with the Spanish American War. The reality of Pearl Harbor. And The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution. We just keep getting sucked into these wars on false pretenses and the only ones held accountable are the poor young people toten the weapons.
kohodog
(2,359 posts)yellow cake, smoking guns, nukes being transported from Iraq by boat to blow us up?
The run up to was trumpeted by a massive propaganda campaign. Yes, some of us never bought it, but the fear mongering was heavy and if the facts were presented honestly do you think the majority of Americans still would have supported it?
Those who protested were marginalized as freaks and misfits.
And who has been re-writing history? Our politicians and corporate media want it to go away. It is past time for the facts to come out.
tuvor
(15,663 posts)the duct tape and plastic......I remember the frenzy the media created with their constant "warnings".
kohodog
(2,359 posts)But the huge supply I bought hasn't run out! Maybe it will come in handy when they go after Iran.
GP6971
(37,804 posts)the run on the tape and sheeting kept the store shelves empty for about a month
annabanana
(52,802 posts)
KoKo
(84,711 posts)of the Media who pushed Judith Miller's lies and Colin Powell's disinformation along with the Cables enjoyment of covering another invasion like CNN's Blitzer's coverage of the bomb bursts of Poppy Bush's Iraq Invasion from the hotel roof in Baghdad.
Media pushed the Meme that Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction were somehow connected to "9/11" ....so therefore we needed to "take him out" so that we could avenge against "Islamic Terraists" and that was the DISTRACTION that average Americans were suckered into.
Ultimately it was the cowards in the US Senate that did the Deed even though Senator Ted Kennedy and Senator Robert Byrd did many debates trying to stop the Invasion. They couldn't prevail. Neither could those who knew and were out in the street protesting, calling and writing their Congress Critters.
But, the Media Propaganda Machine was in lockstep with the Powers who wanted this invasion and they are culpable right under our US Senate and Congress members who voted for it.
Smilo
(2,019 posts)for saying that the upcoming war was wrong and that it would bring nothing but heartache to America.
I lost one friend - someone I thought was close - because of the lies the media and Bush&Co were spreading.
Fear and an illusionary foe works wonders on some people, they forget reason and logic and commonsense, it is a formula that has been proven to work time and again.
tarheelsunc
(2,117 posts)we were fed lies by President Cheney and his henchmen. They made a lot of people believe Iraq had the capability to attack us and made the bogus "nucular weapon" claim. They had no evidence that Saddam possessed nukes, yet they propagated that through the airwaves anyway. The entire invasion was founded on lies. Whether or not average Americans supported it is irrelevant, because the situation we thought existed was not reality.
The truth is, a lot of Americans don't pay close attention to political news. Even though the facts were out there, you had to make an effort to find them, either by internet research or watching non-FOX cable political news, and not everyone has the time or desire to do these. The most a lot of people saw were speeches on the evening news by Bush.
Now as for Democrats in Congress voting for the war, they really have no excuse to be so misinformed.
blm
(114,505 posts)because Clinton had access to ALL classified documents on Iraq over the years - a whole lot more than any other Dem official.
Gary 50
(483 posts)"Now as for Democrats in Congress voting for the war, they really have no excuse to be so misinformed." The Democrats were like Charlie Brown, the republicans like Lucy, promising to hold the ball for Charlie to kick only to pull it away at the last second leaving him sprawled on the ground. The always lying neocons of the bush administration said they had no intention of going to war with Saddam but needed authorization for war as a way of pressuring Saddam. Many hapless Dems believed that patently absurd BS and we all paid a horrible price for their naivete.The moral of the story is NEVER EVER believe anything those evil rat bastard neocons say.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I protested our involvement, too. I was not duped -- either by Afghanistan or Iraq.
socialist_n_TN
(11,481 posts)Of course, I was in Tennessee and this is a very conservative state, so that fact may have colored my impressions. But even though a lot of people opposed the war for good reasons (myself included), for a lot (maybe a majority?) of folks, reasons didn't matter. They wanted Islamic blood and since they all look alike, Iraqi blood was as good as any.
I do think that a larger percentage of people opposed the war than the MSM let on. The media were almost wholly in favor of the imperialistic adventurism which, IMO, swayed a lot of the politicos who might have been opposed to said adventurism, into support. Regardless like most of the issues that face us today, the political class is WAY behind the people. The people weren't 90% behind the Iraqi war at any time whereas the politicos were.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)Average Americans who trusted official sources were indeed lied to. Those of us who already hated Bush had out suspicions and there was a lot of compelling evidence against the war but the full scope of the lies and deceit did not come out until later. It validated what the critics were saying but I myself remember being blown away by just how big the lie was after digging in.
For most Americans, it really will be a revelation. Remember how many thought saddam was involved with 911. It's no accident they were so misinformed.
I had thought we had put the worst of our lies behind us after Vietnam but bush and his war made me accept that we have no institutions left to believe in. Government, religion, any form of public and civil leadership, it's all a gigantic con. Carlin had been saying it for years but it was at least still possible to hope he was too cynical.
kohodog
(2,359 posts)If we do not expose the lies and hypocrisy is there any doubt the nation will be led down the garden path again?
I disagree with the OP that this is re-writing history. It is necessary to bring the facts in to the open before thay are completely buried in the memory hole.
The Wizard
(13,644 posts)is a poor excuse for abdicating moral obligations. All crimes happen in the past. the Bush cartel committed war crimes in our name. A complicit and compliant media followed like sheep, echoing every lie the cartel told without question. To question the cartel meant losing your job. Look at MSNBC's decision to fire Phil Donahue. He had the highest ratings on the network and was fired for opposing the cartel.
As long as America remains the dumbest country in the industrialized world war for profit will be a factor.
jollyreaper2112
(1,941 posts)I'm not in favor of not telling, I'm saying that those of us who already know the story are in the minority and it will be news for most of the rest of the country.
OldDem2012
(3,526 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)I won't speculate as to why you are deliberately ignoring these facts. But it's glaringly obvious that you are.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)of Congress had to know which is why there was little support for anyone in Congress (among democrats at the time) running for president, who voted for the IWR. I never believed them when they claimed they believed the lies from Bush/Cheney. And if they did, then they are not fit to serve in Congress.
I don't remember people on our side ever supporting it though or believing the lies nor did a majority of people around the world.
But I do agree that this is not news.
What would be news would be to see some prosecutions which I know I thought might happen after we finally got rid of Bush. Instead our government has protected them all, even going so far, according to the Wikileaks cables, as to interfere with other countries trying to get some justice for their victims.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)They were fed phony intelligence from the CIA that was cooked up by the white house.
Even the Colin Powell wing of the White house was fed lies by the rest of the administration.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was not the case. There were two reports, one for the public and one available to members of Congress. We learned years ago that once those Senators who chose to look at the uncensored report read it, they knew they had been lied to. Sadly, several Senators chose not to read it and then claimed they had been fooled. This all went on in real time and Sen. Graham, I believe recorded all these events as they happened.
Also, Col. Wilkerson, Colin Powell's aide, has corroborated that it was known that Saddam Hussein had no WMDs by the time they went to the UN.
It is revision of history to claim otherwise. I remember well the reports at the time and if ordinary people like me could access this information, then I'm sorry, but there are simply no excuses. Any Senator who did know the facts, did not know them because they refused to read the reports that were made available to them in order to be able to claim they were 'fooled'.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)congress did not have. And, he read the entire report. As the one Republican senator Rachel highlighted said, if you skimmed the report, you missed it.
I've actually talked to Senator Graham about this in person. He had access to materials most of the rest of congress did not have.
Rachel provided the evidence for you right in the show and she attempted to show you how it happened in real time.
You think its revisionism because you are remembering the whole thing in it's entirety, not according to timeline. When you timeline it out, its clear that congress is not at fault.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the detailed report that exposed the fact that the report was available to all Senators and that some refused to read it so that they could claim plausible deniability for political reasons. One of those who refused to read it was Hillary Clinton. This report was written by a Dem Senator btw. This is all old news and it's interesting to see the attempt to get them off the hook now when the facts ARE available and have been for a very long time.
I will, when I have the time, look for the report and post it. There is absolutely no doubt that before this country decided to invade Iraq, the truth was well known to many, many people yet to their shame, they cared more about their political careers than about matters of life and death.
We hoped at one time that there would be consequences for the lies told that took so many lives, but we learned after finally ridding the country of Bush and his gang of war criminals, that Democrats had no intention of holding them accountable. THAT was a blow to anyone who cares about this country, and we can only hope that one day in the future, someone will have the courage to expose this massive crime and hold everyone involved, regardless of party, responsible, even if it is only for posterity and to ensure that it never happens again.
I was not speaking about Lindsey Graham, btw.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)And he believes he had access to information that the rest of congress did not have without which they would not have voted 'Yes' on IWR.
Of course, Bob Graham is extremely detailed oriented, is the kind of guy who notes every appointment, who he met with and reads every word of every report on which he gets his hands.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)Why are you trying to blame what happened on people who had zero say or influence in the matter equally with the actual perpetrators of this criminal war?
It's almost as if you're trying to protect someone against criticism for not doing his job of holding his criminal predecessor to account, because really, how can he be expected to prosecute the entire equally guilty citizenship?
In any event IMO IMO you are the one trying to rewrite history.
icnorth
(1,045 posts)MuseRider
(35,172 posts)Some, like you said, SOME.
You are correct about this. This country wanted revenge. I knew we were like that, we have always been like that but this time it seemed worse to me. You could not have put the correct info into people's brains if you were able to tattoo them there, they wanted war.
We cannot let this history be changed. As they say, you learn from history not to repeat the same mistakes. We are very bad about this. Still, it needs to be remembered in the proper way.
Arkansas Granny
(32,265 posts)but there was a lot of trickery going on to achieve that goal. Americans were being assaulted every day with images of 911 and attempts to link Hussein with Bin Laden. The war hawks played on these emotions and appealed to people's patriotism to gain support for their plans. The truth of the situation got very little attention and those who tried to reveal it's got shouted down and ridiculed.
pasto76
(1,589 posts)thats how, 10 years ago right now, I was on my first day of active duty 'in support of OEF'...
The OP makes some good points - the average dumbshit american loves it when 'we' go after some bad guy. However, there are a mountain of lies and deceit on which the invasion of Iraq was built. Telling the UN that X Y and Z was happening in Iraq was a lie. Testifying to our Congress, even with the eager beavers, was a lie.
I was there. I fought that war. I was in the first round of occupiers. I was sent there on lies man. The Commander in Chief has to order that. There is no way to parse down that responsibility from the President.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)Congress was tricked, the United Nations was tricked, for all we know even George W. Bush was tricked, but it was his job to lead the nation and he led to war when he could have led to prosperity instead. It was his false choice and the kool-aid he drank was that the war would lead to prosperity. He was 180 degrees wrong and he led by lying to everyone. Now, admittedly the masses are gullible sheep, media, UN, Congress, all propagandizable.
The deception was massive and purposeful. It merits a very serious inquiry and a war crimes tribunal. That won't easily happen given Obama is carrying out the Bush agenda under pressure of public opinion. What needs to change first is opinion, so revisiting the facts is a good thing. Bush will certainly be at the center of the pyre of any inquisition. But Obama may get swept up in any inquiry into war crimes in the global covert war. Note what happened in Italy to operatives. Justice has a way of surfacing when truth is outed.
OneMoreDemocrat
(913 posts)...regarding who is responsible and that deceit was involved, but realistically speaking, this country at the time wanted war, and the trickery employed to convince us of the WMDs was almost overkill; when I say 'this country', I mean the vast majority of us...even though there were millions of us who in no way wanted it and did not believe a word of the Bush Administration's bullshit, we were in the minority.
Coyotl
(15,262 posts)So even when the majority of people want to commit a war crime, they are not the ones held to account later. Government is, after all, people acting in roles, and those people have to be held to account or there is no way to deter dictatorship and thinks like war crimes.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)• Why did the Bush administration suppressed information that ran contrary to their narrative?
For instance, former Iraqi Foreign Minister Najib Sabri, who was a French double agent, was debriefed by the CIA during the spring of 2002. The information from Sabri, along with documentary evidence, debunks the idea that Iraq had any WMD. It was relayed to former CIA Director George Tenet, who personally briefed Bush Jr. on Sept 18, 2002. The information was not passed outside of the inner circle - not even to Colin Powell. CIA's chief of clandestine operation (Europe), Tyler Drumheller, confirmed this in 2006.
• Why did the Bush administration weaved tenuous, faulty and misleading data into a whole complex hypothesis to buttress the U.S. case with its allies?
For instance, the forged Niger uranium documents.
• Why did the Bush administration used outright lies to obtain support from U.S. Congressmen ahead of the Iraq War Resolution vote?
For instance, Senator Bill Nelson, January 28, 2004:
I, along with nearly every Senator in this Chamber, in that secure room of this Capitol complex, was not only told there were weapons of mass destruction--specifically chemical and biological--but I was looked at straight in the face and told that Saddam Hussein had the means of delivering those biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction by unmanned drones, called UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles. Further, I was looked at straight in the face and told that UAVs could be launched from ships off the Atlantic coast to attack eastern seaboard cities of the United States.
Is it any wonder that I concluded there was an imminent peril to the United States? The first public disclosure of that information occurred perhaps a couple of weeks later, when the information was told to us. It was prior to the vote on the resolution and it was in a highly classified setting in a secure room. But the first public disclosure of that information was when the President addressed the Nation on TV. He said that Saddam Hussein possessed UAVs."
Had all the facts been known, we would not have gone into 'war' with Iraq. We were, on varying levels, deceived, intimidated and made fools of. Our Congressmen and Congresswomen, for all their faults, would not have allowed the destruction of an entire country. They were deceived and lied to. The press corp was pressured, coerced and intimidated. The populace was served with jingoistic propaganda of the likes never seen before.
I, We, were not responsible for Iraq. The war criminals (Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld, among others) were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. The blood is in their hands.
life long demo
(1,113 posts)I would just like to add the lives and blood of American soldiers, sailors and marines is also on their hands.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)Our merciless bombardment and destruction of Fallujah and Basra using depleted uranium and white phosphorus shells will haunt thousands of Iraqis for generations to come.
Source
The latest study found that in Fallujah, more than half of all babies surveyed were born with a birth defect between 2007 and 2010. Before the siege, this figure was more like one in 10. Prior to the turn of the millennium, fewer than 2 per cent of babies were born with a defect. More than 45 per cent of all pregnancies surveyed ended in miscarriage in the two years after 2004, up from only 10 per cent before the bombing. Between 2007 and 2010, one in six of all pregnancies ended in miscarriage.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)A fringe of people knew that the war was based on lies. A fringe. An insulated fringe that has no clue what is going on in the minds and hearts of most Americans.
The war criminals were responsible. Bush, Tenet, Condoleeza Rice and Cheney and their staffs first and foremost.
Were the American people the last to know about the lying? Yes. We were.
Remember. We had already fought a (possibly phony) war against Iraq. And Bill and Hillary Clinton kept the Anti-Iraq drums beating during their time in the White House.
I have no idea what the role of Bill and Hillary Clinton was in preparing the US for the drumbeats of war in Iraq, but it was considerable. Maybe they had no choice. I would like to hear their side of the story.
I would also like to hear from Iraqis who remember what life was like in Iraq before the war.
This is why we need to push for less secrecy, much, much more transparency in our military and diplomatic communications. Secrecy can be vital when you are at war. But it is like having dark corners in your basement where no light can reach. All kinds of ugly stuff can hide away in there.
Julian Assange and Wikileaks should not be needed in a "free" country. The secrets of our government should be so few and far between that they earn everyone's respect. When the Wikileaks of the US cables came out, I think many of us realized how really stupid and unnecessary much of the secrecy of our government is. That kind of secrecy is incompatible with democracy. We need to change our policies on what is secret and what is not.
I know a woman who suffers from paranoia -- seriously -- the medical kind. She is never free. She cannot be free. Her fears imprison her. It's sad to watch her. And it is sad to watch our military/industrial complex using paranoia to enrich and ensconce itself.
Less secrecy. More freedom.
FleetwoodMac
(351 posts)Your anecdote, sadly, perfectly illustrates the mindset of the far right today.
rgbecker
(4,890 posts)
Lil Missy
(17,865 posts)I agree the facts were there, but most people aren't news junkies like we are on DU. If you got your news on Fox you might as well have been from a different planet.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)NBC's Chucky Russert let Cheney have the whole hour on Meet the Press several times and never challenged a single lie that devil spewed!
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)The media was in the tank for war and pushed it nonstop for months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. Phil Donahue tried to talk about why we shouldn't go to war and he was fired. Tim Russert enabled the Bush administration's war agenda every week by having one member of that evil administration after another, every Sunday, tell lie after lie after lie while he never once acted like a real journalist and challenged even the most obvious lies.
Amy Goodman discussed this extensively in a book and gives the numbers of the percentage of pro-war vs no war stories. She is the only reporter to date that I know of who disclosed this appalling figure - somewhere around 98% pro-war.
This is what the American people knew in March of 2003 - Sadaam was bad, Iraq was building nuclear weapons and we needed to be a bully because we were attacked on 9/11.
But, in spite of that, DUers were largely against invading Iraq. I was here the day of shock and awe and the website nearly crashed. I couldn't log on for more than an hour that evening, there was that much traffic. There was nearly overwhelming agreement that invading Iraq was wrong. Yes there were a few pro-war voices but they were GREATLY outnumbered.
Sadly, after wonderful support for Cindy Sheehan beginning in August of 2005, this community turned on her and more voices supported war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but that was 18 months or more after the initial invasion. Perhaps that is what you are remembering.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)and largely fault the media as well downthread
JHB
(38,102 posts)The deceptions were how they pushed -- hard -- to deceive and/or strong-arm fence-sitters and those giving him the benefit of the doubt into going along.
Do you recall the intricate interweaving of "Saddam" and "911" in every speech....while carefully never outright claiming that Saddam had a hand in 911 (that part was left to pundits and others outside the (mal)administration, who could be relied upon to do so).
Then there was the Incredible Shrinking Force Level, where the Bushies' claim of the size of the military force needed was magically far lower than then then-current estimates of what would be needed to occupy a country the size of Iraq (as in half to a third of what would have been needed). But a full sized force didn't mesh with the selling point of something that would be done quickly and cheaply ("a cakewalk"
. A larger commitment would have had more resistance and forced a lot of people (especially in congress) to not simply take the Bushies' word on it.
On point after point they pushed, pulled, leveraged, and catapulted in order to bridge the gap between what they could do unilaterally and what they needed others to go along with.
Kablooie
(19,076 posts)The New American Century neocon organization, Rumsfeld and Cheney were members, had been itching to take out Sadaam long before 2001.
They wanted him out so much that they wrote a letter to Clinton urging him to invade Iraq in 1998. Clinton refused.
Their website is still up and here is a copy of that letter:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
When 9/11 occurred they saw it as a chance to achieve this goal. They had been demonizing Sadaam for years in the hopes of getting public support for their war and 9/11 gave them the chance to push it over the top.
The public would have been satisfied with a major push into Afghanistan to get Bin Laden. The NAC guys are the ones who perverted it into an attack on Iraq.
This had nothing to do with 9/11. It was a scheme run by a small group of fanatics who saw their chance to achieve their personal goals.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)There were many, many people in both parties that wanted to invade that country. There were even many of our allies that wanted to invade. The Brits, the Israelis, the Germans, etc.. The French were the only allies that opposed us.
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)You cannot deny that there was a concerted effort by the Bush Administration to "push" the idea of the Iraq War. Here's just one example - Colin Powell's speech on satellite pictures of mobile WMD labs to the UN.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I think it comes down to what the meaning of "is" is. Or rather the meaning of "tricked". If the definition of "tricked" includes those that wanted to be "tricked" then there were lots and lots of people tricked. But the important issue is not whether we were tricked but whether our government tried to trick us. Was their intent to deceive us? That's what we need to concentrate on. How many people went along, whether tricked or not is not the main issue.
The history needs to be readdressed and I think that possibly Dr. Maddow wants to let those guilty of complicity at the level of the masses by allowing the "we were tricked" meme to be out there. Without it those guilty of following Bush, the Dim-Son, might be defensive and try to justify that Bush and Co. had bad intelligence.
George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice, Rummy, etc. all lied to us and should be punished, irregardless of how many of us actually feel for the lies.
I notice your detractors would rather make the issue about you and ignore the real issue.
RC
(25,592 posts)happening right here in this thread.
The lack of critical thinking. As noted above, being critical of the poster, instead of the information in his OP. Only hearing what we want to hear. MadHound's information isn't wrong, somehow, but somehow MadHound is wrong.
No, he isn't wrong. This county wanted revenge. There were something like 12 to 14 (16?) million people around the world and in this country protesting against the invasion. Except for DU, most of us would have only heard/seen glossed over accounts of these protests.
What I remember the most about the run-up to the invasion, were the talking points, outright lies, propaganda, whatever, put by the bu$h administration, that didn't make a whole of sense to me. How could anyone listening to the talking points, not question them?
If people would have stopped and thought about what they were hearing, instead of going along with what they knew they were supposed to be hearing, if they had actually processed the Bullshit, maybe the criminal invasion of Iraq could have been stopped.
But no, too many people, by far the majority of people in this country, bought into the rhetoric. After all, one towel-head is the same as any other, right? The middle East was only a fuzzy, nebulous location, full of sand and camels. Many Americans could not find the Middle East on a world map, let alone Baghdad, and many still can't.
Never mind that we were told, 15 of the 19 were Saudis, with the rest being from Egypt and Lebanon, with none being from Iraq. But few questioned the bu$h rhetoric that we had to attack Iraq for something that they obviously had no part in. "Attack Iraq". It rhymes, adding credence to the rhetoric that we gotta do it, regardless.
Never mind Saddam was put in place by the United State to stabilize the area. Of that, he did a very good job of what he was charged wiht. Terrorists were not tolerated kindly. Baghdad was the center of civilization and learning, of the whole Middle East. It had world class medical institutions, world class museums. Women taught in the universities, were professors, doctors, managed business, drove cars. Women went about their daily routines in western clothing. But look at Baghdad now.
Saddam's sin was to threaten to stop using the US dollar and start using the Euro for oil. For that he had to go. He had to die, so we went in and murdered him. And that is the real reason we invaded Iraq and destroyed priceless artifacts, dating from the beginning of civilization. Once there, we stood by and watch as museums were plundered. We did nothing as hospitals were stripped of their medical supplies. We stopped any efforts to get the local infrastructure, water, electricity, up and running again, after removing the head of the government. We needlessly removed the whole government and made sure whatever was left, was non-functional! But, we made absolutely sure the Oil Ministry was well guarded and left intact.
And still we, in this country, yelled "HELL YEAH!!1!, they deserved what they got for 9/11!". There are still people on Democratic Underground, right now, as you read this, still of that mind. Those that swallow hook, line and sinker, the bu$h version, the lies, of what happened back then.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)leveymg
(36,418 posts)There were some who knew perfectly well that the WMD claims being made by the Bush Administration justifying invasion did not line up with the actual intelligence estimates. Those on the Senate Intel Committee, in particular, must have known that, at least those who were really paying attention, or who wanted to know before they voted on the Iraq War Resolution (IWR) (October 16, 2002), carried .
These Senators had a greater influence on their colleagues than others. Note how the Committee votes line up. Here they are:
SENATE INTEL COMMITTEE 2001-2002
Democrats (NO-5, AYE 4)......................................Republicans (ALL AYE)
Bob Graham,
Florida
Chairman (NO) ....................................................Richard C. Shelby,Alabama
Vice Chairman
Carl Levin,
Michigan (NO)......................................................Jon Kyl, Arizona
John D. Rockefeller IV, West Virginia (AYE)................James M. Inhofe, Oklahoma
Dianne Feinstein,
California (AYE)....................................................Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
Ron Wyden,Oregon(NO)..........................................Pat Roberts,Kansas
Richard Durbin,
Illinois(NO)............................................................Mike DeWine, Ohio
Evan Bayh,
Indiana (AYE)........................................................Fred Thompson, Tennessee
John Edwards,
North Carolina (AYE)................................................Richard G. Lugar, Indiana
Barbara A. Mikulski, Maryland (NO)
Here's the complete list of Senators who voted against the IWR.
Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Jeff Bingaman (D-NM)
Barbara Boxer (D-CA)
Robert Byrd (D-WV)
Lincoln Chafee (R-RI)
Kent Conrad (D-ND)
Jon Corzine (D-NJ)
Mark Dayton (D-MN)
Richard Durbin (D-IL)
Russell Feingold (D-WI)
Robert Graham (D-FL)
Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
James Jeffords (I-VT)
Edward Kennedy (D-MA)
Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
Carl Levin (D-MI)
Barbara Mikulski (D-MD)
Patty Murray (D-WA)
Jack Reed (D-RI)
Paul Sarbanes (D-MD)
Debbie Stabenow (D-MI)
Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
Ron Wyden (D-OR)
United States House of Representatives
Party Yes Nays PRES No Vote
Republican 215 6 0 2
Democratic 82 126 0 1
Independent 0 1 0 0
TOTALS 297 133 0 3
82 (40%) of 208 Democratic Representatives voted for the resolution.
6 (<3%) of 223 Republican Representatives voted against the resolution: Reps. Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX).
The only Independent Representative voted against the resolution: Rep. Sanders (I-VT)
Reps. Ortiz (D-TX), Roukema (R-NJ), and Stump (R-AZ) did not vote on the resolution.
United States Senate
Party Ayes Nays No Vote
Republican 48 1 0
Democratic 29 21 0
Independent 0 1 0
TOTALS 77 23 0
21 of 50 Democratic senators voted against the resolution: Sens. Akaka (D-HI), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Byrd (D-WV), Conrad (D-ND), Corzine (D-NJ), Dayton (D-MN), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Graham (D-FL), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Reed (D-RI), Sarbanes (D-MD), Stabenow (D-MI), Wellstone (D-MN), and Wyden (D-OR).
1 (2%) of 49 Republican senators voted against the resolution: Sen. Chafee (R-RI).
The only Independent senator voted against the resolution: Sen. Jeffords (I-VT)
randome
(34,845 posts)They have shown they can no longer wield power effectively. We don't need to parse words or meaning in this. Go with the flow. If saying we were tricked into the Iraq war further cements the GOP's doom, lets go with that.
Martin Eden
(15,484 posts)DU was my biggest source of information debunking all the lies.
Were there some at DU who thought otherwise? In any large diverse community you'll find differences, but DU was overwhelmingly opposed.
You're just plain mistaken about this; about DU, and about the American public in general (mostly fell for the misinformation campaign orchestrated by Bushco and the mainstream media).
If anyone is rewriting history, it is you.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The rationalization wouldn't have been possible without Cheney, Rice, Powell, Judith Miller, et al, absolutely lying -- loudly, constantly, and publicly. Without that concerted, dishonest effort, it wouldn't have flown.
It's a worthy point that it was as much the Lie Agreed Upon as a Big Lie, but it was lying, nonetheless.
And people did fool themselves into believing it. I recall two people, out of the blue, demanding to know how I could not see the terrible threat Saddam Hussein posed to the United States. Really angry and frightened. One whose Dennis Miller-based e-mail SPAM I questioned let me know she'd await my "apology" when those WMDs were found.
Haven't heard from her since.
Baitball Blogger
(51,973 posts)Yeah. We weren't all tricked.
JohnnyRingo
(20,693 posts)Honest people... people who viewed the news only casually, but came away with a sincere belief that Hussein personally planned and executed the 9/11 attack.
I believe a large majority of the country was indeed sold on that non-fact from an arm of the media that promoted it. It was then relayed to people like my friends who were astounded when I explained the truth. I actually had to memorize the national makeup of the terrorists so I could inform friends as they popped up with knowledge of the lies. Some still never believed me.
Martin Eden
(15,484 posts)But Bush did, repeatedly. And remember, in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 Bush had a 90% approval rating. A large swath of the public trusted this president on national security.
Here's an article a two paragraphs from October 2003 that makes a very compelling case that Bush deliberately lied about Saddam's alleged ties to al Qaeda, and that he constantly conflated Iraq with 9/11 to form the public perception that the two were linked:
http://www.wnd.com/2003/10/21119/
“Used to be that we could think that you could contain a person like Saddam Hussein, that oceans would protect us from his type of terror,” he said at the same press conference. “Sept. 11 should say to the American people that we’re now a battlefield, that weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a terrorist organization could be deployed here at home.”
In that press conference, Bush mentioned the Sept. 11 attacks nine times, Saddam 40 times, and Osama zero, effectively morphing Osama into Saddam, as I pointed out in a column just before the war.
tjwash
(8,219 posts)91 - first time they invaded Iraq using the pretense of "defending Kuwait" and was told by my supervisor at the time to put a little fucking flag in my cubicle to show support. I refused to and all of a sudden started getting bad reviews and written up constantly after a previously spotless record.
-
98 - was living in an M.E. country at the time working as a gov-contractor. The experience of it all without the US corporate media propaganda arm shoving lies down my throat was actually stunning. However, returning home, I had my patriotism questioned constantly by my family and friends when I returned home. Was told by people to go the fuck back to the middle east because I obviously didn't belong here anymore. Quit my job as a contractor shortly afterwards.
-
2003 - Same lies, same bullshit, same propaganda, and a real stupid idiot as C.I.C. The big change was that the same people who berated and belittled me constantly actually did not buy it this time. They were actually asking my opinions and agreeing with me on being against it. Most said that in hindsight, that they realized they were gullible and duped the first 2 times, and not getting fooled anymore. Maybe it was getting a little older or something that did it to them...don't know.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)why was there such an effort in our mainstream media to sell this war? Why did Smirky and Co. work so hard to lie to the world?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Colin Powell's lies about WMD in Iraq wasn't their reason to support the war - it was an excuse.
George II
(67,782 posts)I'm looking forward to this documentary because in the past it has been laid out in pieces by various journalists and mostly on the internet.
This is the first time, I believe, that a systematic, chronological analysis has been done with cold hard facts, not neo-con or Fox news "facts".
It may be a very disturbing and depressing presentation.
PS - your premise that the American public wasn't tricked is false, as was the rationale for the war.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)Same thing here. We want to be blameless.
"We didn't know" is the inevitable excuse of a population which permitted its government to commit atrocities.
I told me neighbor long before the invasion, but when it had become inevtable, that we would find no weapons of mass destruction, be they nuclear, biological or chemical. He thinks I was a genius. I was not. I was merely paying attention.
Joe Shlabotnik
(5,604 posts)whether it was blood lust/fear, a sense of superiority or opportunism, our outright gullibility; none of these traits are admirable or worthy of 'duped' status.
Canadians consume far more American news than homegrown news, and yet our government emphatically said NO to joining this adventure. No one that I personally know was convinced by the 'evidence', as most of the western world wasn't either. Do Americans have a weakness for snake oil? or was it group-think on a massive scale?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)If you are evil you don't deserve due process. You just deserve to die. That's probably why no one really threw a hissy fit over Gitmo. As long as it is out of sight out of mind people will put up with the invasion of Iraq, illegal prisons, and even use of drones on American citizens.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)Something else IMPORTANT Corporate McPravda NEVER mentions:
Know your BFEE: Poppy Bush Armed Saddam
This is total bs. I marched in NYC along with a half a million other patriots to prevent the invasion of Iraq. Why? Because it was al Qaeda who attacked us and we knew Hussein had nothing to do with it. We also knew that there was intel that cited no credible evidence to support W.'s claims of WMD. We had the UN ask for a delay of ninety days, but Cheney wanted the liberation parades through downtown Baghdad to begin as soon as possible. 4000 American lives later, there is not one shred of evidence to suggest there were wmd's and no proof of Saddam's complicity on 9/11. Inventing faux support for an adamantly opposed invasion is crap.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)And just as today, there were a significant number of people here arguing if favor of submission to and trust of "leadership". A few of the names remain the same which only goes to prove that some can always be counted on to be consistently wrong and to repeat errors.
bhikkhu
(10,789 posts)...as you can look at the evidence and say - "of course they were tricked, look at all the consistent flow of lies put out by those in authority, look at the conspiracy toward war by those in positions of public trust". If it weren't necessary to trick people into agreement, why all the trickery?
On the other hand, you could say - "the information was a sham at best and simple bullying at worst - nobody would have believed it if they didn't choose to, and nobody would have given in if they didn't want to".
How I think about it: people are basically good. Most people want to do the right thing. Most people work hard and deserve a decent life. Most people have less than they deserve, and we should all enjoy a basic dignity and equality. This to me is the simple statement of what a "democrat" is, what a "liberal" is, and the core of the belief system that is referred to when someone is called a "leftist".
abelenkpe
(9,933 posts)And many participated in the protests against the war before it began knowing that the reasons for war were based on lies. My family on the east coast are fox viewing republicans. They were certainly tricked into supporting a war based on lies just as they are daily tricked into supporting policies that harm them given that they are not part of the one percent. Some of them still believe the lies about WMD and such. They would deny that they supported war to vent their nationalistic rage. But FOX news and other right wing pundits certainly whipped up rage based on lies and misinformation.
larkrake
(1,674 posts)We never wanted to go to Iraq. We knew better. The War makers wanted to go for oil and to sell arms, corps wanted to get contracts and Bush was part of the planning of bankrupting this country
uppityperson
(116,005 posts)I never was for invading Iraq, but remember Collin Powell doing his presentation and thinking he had a case for somehow dealing with Saddam.
lobodons
(1,290 posts)Um, I think you are confused with Afghanistan. Afghanistan, yes, lets go kick some 9/11 terrorists ass. Iraq? Um, it was more like lets go get some revenge for Daddy. Not many were for the daddy revenge thing.
gtar100
(4,192 posts)I think your criticisms of "people" generally fall outside the realm of DU'rs. But the history that was written for the masses in America is full of the lies we all heard back then. The turning point for many (outside of DU and like blogospheres) , however, was when it became obvious that Sadaam didn't have WMD's. But even that lie died a slow death.
Your rage with the American people, could probably be more accurately targeted at certain segments of the population. It was not hard to get the right information back then, but you had to be suspicious of the media to begin with. And back then, most mainstream media groups were trusted. They bet their reputations on supporting the Iraq invasion and for me, that was the last straw. As far as television was concerned, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Faux could never be trusted again. I think NBC was the first to get it. They pushed their branding to MSNBC and actually hired liberal hosts. Good on them.
There's no rewrite of history going on with Rachel Maddow's upcoming show. I'd call it more of a "setting the record straight."
Celebration
(15,812 posts)There was a concerted effort given towards hyping the so called biologic weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, giving the war the patina of respectability.
Sans all that the American public would NOT have accepted the war. This was untruthful, organized, and relentless, and reached to the NY Times. Yes, people were questioning the Judith Millers of the world at the time but at that point nobody knew who to believe. Hindsight is 20/20.
It is very useful to look at what happened then. I think we all need to be aware of embedded types in the media that promote agendas.
Laura PourMeADrink
(42,770 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)When I was going around telling people the administration was lying about the centrifuges, which was central to their case that Saddam Hussein was enriching uranium, people thought I was crazy.
They believed all that crap about Saddam's nuclear capabilities.
You should have seen when I told my Rep this, that he had to be careful of what they were telling him. I bet he still thinks I am still crazy because he probably doesn't realize I was right, but just remembers that I told him the government was lying.
usafvet65
(46 posts)I did my homework. I dug out my own evidence. I wrote about my opposition to the invasion of Iraq.
My family and friends knew my position.
History, history combined with time will prove those who opposed the war were right.
None of us as an individual will ever sway the likes of neocons like Cheney, McCain and Graham. Bush & Cheney will not be viewed well when the history is written.
Even today neocon John McCain is desperately trying everyday in every way to prove he was right. He gets smaller and smaller with each desperate attempt. Soon to be no more than a pimple on the ass of history. Giving away his Vietnam service record along the way.
What originally drew me to DU was my feeling that the DU community (as a majority) opposed the war.
I can't convince myself that this would have been a comfortable place for me to "settle" if I felt that DUers wavered in their opposition to the war.
Trolls and other Fox news devotees where a major part of the minority that defended the neocons on DU.
There was no escaping them at the time.
Ford_Prefect
(8,553 posts)Invasion plans had been drawn up at least 2 years prior to the 2000 selection and were part of the Neo-Con drive to usurp the White House. In fact they had been in development since Reagan along with the Neo-Con Coup that was derailed by Clinton's election.
Frankly your contention that Americans had hate to deliver and decided based on uniquely American prejudice to unload on Iraq are insulting. You push the boundaries of credulity never mind recorded fact. Such an assertion is reactionary on the face of it and ignores the facts known then and since.
You ignore the manipulation of Congress by means of FOX news and other Neo-Con machinations. I have friends who worked as congressional staff at the time who said you could not believe anything said by ANYONE at the time because so much came so fast. The fake call lines and congressional mail and email machines run by the Neo-Cons made it impossible to tell what real voters were saying. The faked Intel from many sources. The insipid and fawning MSM reports of yet new fearsome intel. This and more functioned as the echo chamber driving the decisions Congress made.
You leave out the absurd drive to vote for war and for the obscene Homeland Security bill without prior and proper debate. It was a (now well documented) drive by Conservative leaders to obstruct over 200 years of constitutional democracy in order to subvert it to the cause of Empire.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Flags, cute ribbon stickers on cars, "God Bless America", stern looking generals giving speeches, pundits showing graphs, and the American love of being #1.
OregonBlue
(8,182 posts)I think that's it in a nutshell.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Iran is a completely different thing altogether. 
uppityperson
(116,005 posts)supported more, to vent rage over 911. But Iraq? While I am sure there were some DUers who supported it as there are DUers that support all sorts of things, most of us were against it.
As far as the american people? They, like some here WERE tricked. Remember Collin Powell's presentations? Tricks. Lies. And people believed him.
If you want to talk about Afghanistan and 911 rage, let's talk that.
Yes, there were some, enough, too many that reverted to their jingoistic xenophobic roots which should never be covered up.
But to deny the lies we were fed is also a heinous crime.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)the radio around that time. What I heard was how Colin Powell reported to the UN that, yes, indeed, Iraq had magic trucks that carried WMDs around. He showed us photos of these trucks.
Sorry. But I did not get the news from the media I was reading every morning. And I never watched Fox or read a Murdoch newspaper.
If you had the time to read news sources that informed you about the lies, good for you.
I was working very long hours. The media that reached me said nothing about the hoax that was going on.
The only time I questioned the media stories was when I watched an interview between Dan Rather and Saddam Hussein on the eve or very shortly before our first strikes took place. I turned to my husband and said something to the effect of, "He looks like he is telling the truth. Or at least he believes he is."
That was the first inkling I had that the whole thing was maybe a hoax. But I did not have any reason to believe that my government, even with Bush and Cheney heading it, would lie to me to start a war.
I believed that Hitler had lied to the German people to con them into WWII, but I never, never believed that our government could do that. We are supposed to have checks and balances. Remember?
Our system is supposed to protect us against dictators who lie us into illegal wars. Remember?
I totally disagree with the OP. Some members of my family were on to the lies, but honestly, I trusted my country. And from my newspapers and in the limited time I had, there was no way I could have known. I had no reason to think my government would lie in this way to me.
The Iraq War really opened my eyes. I think that the Rachel Maddow documentary will finally open the eyes of a lot of other people. And I'm glad she is making it. I will watch it on the internet.
You have to understand that when the LA Times fired Robert Scheer and refused to put the Downing Street memo story front, center and frequently on its front page, I ended my subscription. And I do not have cable TV either. Bunch of liars. That's what they are.
And that is why I am grateful to Julian Assange and Wikileaks for tearing down the wall between the truth and our media.
Tikki
(15,080 posts)from home. It is like a feeling of unconditional love and it goes inward and shines my little light on me.
Tikki
Cleita
(75,480 posts)It's you who are trying to whitewash it. The nation and the world were against it. Massive protests that were totally ignored by the mainstream media prove it. However, the Project for a New American Century, Republicans represented by Bush/Cheney and company were itching for war with Iraq as far back as 1998. Proof is in a letter they wrote to then President Clinton urging him to attack Iraq.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm
The Honorable William J. Clinton
President of the United States
Washington, DC
Dear Mr. President:
We are writing you because we are convinced that current American policy toward Iraq is not succeeding, and that we may soon face a threat in the Middle East more serious than any we have known since the end of the Cold War. In your upcoming State of the Union Address, you have an opportunity to chart a clear and determined course for meeting this threat. We urge you to seize that opportunity, and to enunciate a new strategy that would secure the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world. That strategy should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power. We stand ready to offer our full support in this difficult but necessary endeavor.
The policy of “containment” of Saddam Hussein has been steadily eroding over the past several months. As recent events have demonstrated, we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections. Our ability to ensure that Saddam Hussein is not producing weapons of mass destruction, therefore, has substantially diminished. Even if full inspections were eventually to resume, which now seems highly unlikely, experience has shown that it is difficult if not impossible to monitor Iraq’s chemical and biological weapons production. The lengthy period during which the inspectors will have been unable to enter many Iraqi facilities has made it even less likely that they will be able to uncover all of Saddam’s secrets. As a result, in the not-too-distant future we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.
Such uncertainty will, by itself, have a seriously destabilizing effect on the entire Middle East. It hardly needs to be added that if Saddam does acquire the capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction, as he is almost certain to do if we continue along the present course, the safety of American troops in the region, of our friends and allies like Israel and the moderate Arab states, and a significant portion of the world’s supply of oil will all be put at hazard. As you have rightly declared, Mr. President, the security of the world in the first part of the 21st century will be determined largely by how we handle this threat.
Given the magnitude of the threat, the current policy, which depends for its success upon the steadfastness of our coalition partners and upon the cooperation of Saddam Hussein, is dangerously inadequate. The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.
We urge you to articulate this aim, and to turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. This will require a full complement of diplomatic, political and military efforts. Although we are fully aware of the dangers and difficulties in implementing this policy, we believe the dangers of failing to do so are far greater. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council.
We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country. If we accept a course of weakness and drift, we put our interests and our future at risk.
Sincerely,
Elliott Abrams Richard L. Armitage William J. Bennett
Jeffrey Bergner John Bolton Paula Dobriansky
Francis Fukuyama Robert Kagan Zalmay Khalilzad
William Kristol Richard Perle Peter W. Rodman
Donald Rumsfeld William Schneider, Jr. Vin Weber
Paul Wolfowitz R. James Woolsey Robert B. Zoellick
Please note the roster of the damned who signed it. Any names familiar to you. Also, Jeb Bush and Dick Cheney were members of this cult.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)pundits and publishers. These three powerful centers in DC and New York and London had to sate their ravaging desire for revenge.
A lot of people were out there protesting including me. These turned out fo be the last real political events I attended before I fell ill.
But the media wouldn't waiver one bit, they shut down coverage and if any media light was shone on the protest it was through a prism to make those protesting appear to the be the scarlet other.
Every time I went to a protest it was populated by people from all walks of life including many clerics and middle class people frightened into protesting this vanity war.
I was hopeful but was never truly optimistic about stopping the glee for revenge that ran rampant through the media.
The media was tighter back then, more in control of the delivery of news. Plus the right wing media machine was still ascending and ready to take the "Conservative" message beyond their normal audience.
It's a horrible time to look back on, it's a disgraceful chapter in our history and I firmly believe that this particular war will prove to be the tipping point for the fall of the American Empire.
Freedom Fries....
Cleita
(75,480 posts)We not very free today. It seems the FBI, CIA and Homeland Security have all the authorities the SS had in Germany.
WCGreen
(45,558 posts)My sarcastic addition of Freedom Fries...
Cleita
(75,480 posts)The freedom fries and just repetition of the word freedom through that whole era as a code word, while we were actually losing our freedoms, just stuck in my brain.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)We knew about PNAC and thus knew the installed administration would go to war against Iraq by any means necessary. As long time DUers, we were against the War from the start!
Snarkoleptic
(6,223 posts)Neocons want the ability to do as they wish and clean it up on edit.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)I invite you to grab a box of Kleenex...
...and be prepared for a dose of reality. Yes, there are Dems that support the PNAC agenda. I would say that at least half of the Dems in Congress right now have supported the PNAC agenda. They have done it with their war votes.
It took me about a year to really comprehend this, and to get over the denial-- but it is absolutely true.
If you look at the PNAC agenda--and they had it published on their Website--you'll see that they spell it all out. They want a U.S domination of the world--obtained through military might and by dominating the world's resources (mainly oil).
They specifically lay out the plan--first Iraq. That's their foothold into the Middle East. The first step in a grand plan. Who voted for the war with Iraq?
Lots of Dems did. They knew DAMN WELL that this was a PNAC/neocon endeavor. We all know that Bush and Cheney were misrepresenting the intelligence and lying us into war. Did we actually believe that the Dems in Congress were oh-so bamboozled
and that they were just trying to do the right thing. Oh please.
Take a good long look at this letter from January 1998. This letter is to then-President Bill Clinton and it's from the PNACers--signed by Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, Bolton, Bill Kristol and other neocons. This letter begs Clinton to take us to war with Iraq.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:kmu9aR-eTKgJ:www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm+PNAC+letter+to+Bill+Clinton&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
I saw Clinton talk about this letter during an interview. He mentioned that the "Republicans asked me to go to war with Iraq and I refused." Clinton said that his reason for rebuffing the Republicans was because he was in the throes of the Lewinsky scandal and he didn't want to be accused of "wagging the dog." Get that? Clinton didn't spell it out like it was--that these warmongering neocons were trying to get their foothold--and that these bloodthirsty Fascists had to be stopped. He kept their agenda under wraps.
And what does Hillary Clinton do? She never says a damn thing. Those PNACer that signed that 1998 letter to President Clinton all rose to power in the George Bush administration. Then, five years later, they all decide that we must go to war with Iraq now--due to "mushroom clouds" "mobile weapons labs" and all sorts of other LIES. Did Hillary Clinton come out and say, "Look. This is the same cast of characters who asked my husband for war with Iraq. They've wanted this war since 1998. Here is the letter they wrote in 1998 asked for the same war. It appears that they're using 9/11 and exaggerations to sell us into it this time."
No. Hillary didn't mention the letter. The PNACers. Or the fact that the neocons had been shopping around this war for years and years.
Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq war. She stood on the Senate floor and told us all that Saddam was a huge threat and that we must do this. We must go to war with Iraq. Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary Clinton didn't know that this was part of the neocon plan--especially when that plan is posted on their Website and especially when they tried to get her husband to help them gain that foothold in Iraq just five years before?
All of the Dems knew. Every damn on of them. And Rahm Emanuel went on the Bill Maher show and defended the Iraq war and the surge. That was a blistering interview. Many Dems have toed the neocon line. Please, look around you--there is proof everywhere that the many of the establishment Dems and most of the Republican party are UNITED. This cancer began inside the Republican party--with the conservatives. However, it has spread into the Dem party--you can see it in their votes and in the way they NEVER, EVER reveal the Fascist agenda of the neocons or try to stop them. Many Dems are complicit.
The majority of Dems and most of the Republicans are one party--continuing war and the PNAC agenda, furthering corporate interests, supporting the PNACers; and leveraging Wall Street, the banks, the health-insurance companies and big Pharma--at the expense of the American people.
When you have your eyes wide open, the proof of this is around you, everywhere.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=9251845&mesg_id=9252230
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Nice
bjobotts
(9,141 posts)The lies were everywhere to persuade public opinion and I'm still under the view that had the people known the truth about what the neocons were doing we would never have gone to war with Iraq.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)post. I have printed it so I can show all why I ceased liking and supporting Hillary Clinton back in October 2002!
Of course, John Kerry, Joe Biden and others who voted for IWR and then ran for POTUS are equally guilty. None of them can ever wash the blood for their hands.
indepat
(20,899 posts)their jingoistic, xenophobic roots, and gladly supported the killing of innocents." Wholeheartedly wish I could refute that statement, but am unable to. After all, we are a society in which 47% cast their votes for der Mittens, notwithstanding his support for the Ryan budget which would have financially bludgeoned countless citizens. My only explanation is society has been bombarded right-wing hate, harangue, lies, and distortions continuously played to large groups eaten up with fervent right-wing fundamental religiosity, pro-lifers, 2nd Amendment zealots, and the like. We live in a society where government has largely long promoted the welfare of large corporations and the most affluent to the detriment of the rest of society, a society which does not provide for universal health care and which ranks at or near the bottom in all quality-of-life ranking factors among industrialized ranking factors. Add a falling standard of living for countless millions, extreme income inequality, and very high rates of incarceration, and what do we get? A right-wing-soused society that is constantly bombarded with right-wing hate by stochastic terrorists who egg on some of the deranged to act out their hate on those hated libruls.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)Some of us trying to be heard over the drumbeats of fear, hatred, and revenge.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
spanone
(141,257 posts)war with iraq was on their agenda from day one.
they led us into the war. they lied us into the war.
Jack Sprat
(2,500 posts)Your foolish assertions are too absurd to deserve a response. People, like you, make me real tired. Just keep on defending the neocon cause. It defines you.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Yes, most wanted to go after those responsible but I seriously doubt most would have wanted to go to war with Iraq if they were told the truth at the time.
Rhiannon12866
(252,830 posts)But then I was here on DU. But I never really believed it would happen, felt physically sick the night we saw "shock and awe...: 
Tumbulu
(6,625 posts)and then show the counter protesters....oh my the press was in with the neocons and even intelligent people that I know were telling me that Iraq was hiding the 9/11 terrorists. it was an outrageous manipulation and most people were misled.
Rhiannon12866
(252,830 posts)I also took part in a protest which was pretty impressive for my small city and lovely when more than 100 of us walked through the main street at night with lighted candles. But the only picture that the local paper printed was of the lone "Support the Troops" guy with his sign... 
Tumbulu
(6,625 posts)so many of us protested and wrote letters and tried, but we were silenced.
Thanks for trying anyway.
Rhiannon12866
(252,830 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 19, 2013, 04:24 AM - Edit history (1)
It was all about whether Bush* could get away with this, or not, and how the rest of the world was protesting with us. I remember an article here about Richard Clarke saying that he was urged to somehow tie 9/11 to Iraq from the very beginning. And we knew that the media wasn't covering the worldwide protests.
Nobody here was fooled, but this was back on DU.1 and we no longer have access to those archives. We moved to DU.2 on July 6, 2003, well after "shock and awe" the previous March...
Tumbulu
(6,625 posts)I came her in 2005 (I think) and never saw anyone for the war.
Rhiannon12866
(252,830 posts)After all, this website was started on Inauguration Day 2001 because Skinner and EarlG (and the rest of us on the Left) were angry and shocked when Bush* was "selected" as president by the Supreme Court after the vote count was halted in Florida.
One thread that sticks in my mind from DU.1, posted just before the Iraq invasion, was a pic of a little Iraqi boy, probably four or five, who was also taking part in a peace vigil and was attempting to get his lighted candle to float with others in some water. When "shock and awe" was launched and we saw footage of the sky in Baghdad lit up with bombs, I couldn't help thinking of that little boy, kept wondering if he was scared or was even alive. I remember no support for the war here on DU.
Summer Hathaway
(2,770 posts)Only you can answer the question as to why you feel this sudden push to rewrite history about the Iraq war.
Thus far, you haven't answered that question to anyone's satisfaction.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)I was against that war from the very beginning, well before the fist shot was fired, in fact.
This is on them, not me.
joshcryer
(62,536 posts)Killing people is the hallmark of being an American.
Dash87
(3,220 posts)Public opinion turned and faux Monday morning quarterbacking only started when the war went sour with the Insurgency. The idiots actually believed that Iraq would open us with open arms by throwing flowers at us, and then the war would be paid for with Iraqi oil.
America knew what the war was about. They didn't care, because they were afraid and vengeful. Dissent was stamped out early by the loudest voices, or worse, ignored completely. The wargasm commenced as people joyfully watched on the TV as the bombs fell during shock and awe. Well, hundreds of thousands of wounded soldiers later, suicides every day, families torn apart and suffering, and thousands of soldiers dead, was it really worth it?
JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)They could not tell the difference between Iraq and Afghanistan.
The majority of Americans think other than Israel, the entire middle east, and its entire population, is made of of Arabs who all share the exact same fundamentalist Islamic extremism as those who crashed the plans into the World Trade Center.
The majority of Americans never knew that the majority of hijackers on 9/11 were Saudis.
Most of them could not find Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan on a globe even if you turned the globe so the middle east was facing them.
It all might as well be ONE country to them.
They did know that back in the early 90s, Bush #1 went to war against Iraq, and we "won" in about 100 days.
After watching the towers fall on 9/11, if was easy to get the majority of Americans to believe that Saddam was going to set off a nuke in Toledo OH or Lubbock, TX.
greiner3
(5,214 posts)There are 67 Recs as of this post.
Tells you something of DU's backsliding of late!
hughee99
(16,113 posts)
Ganja Ninja
(15,953 posts)What I remember was one of my FOX watching co-workers practically giddy about going to war in Iraq and eventually Iran. He was thrilled with the idea and convinced we were going to get all their oil and gas was going back to less than $1 a gallon.
People weren't bamboozled or angry so much as they were just greedy, thieving, thoughtless, moronic, assholes. They had no problem with killing innocent people and taking their stuff.
RagAss
(13,832 posts)...and how did that all work out ?
deurbano
(2,984 posts)I agree the correct information was out there, but I don’t agree that most people were aware of it. As I recall, one of the few (mainstream) news organizations to consistently provide that accurate information was Knight-Ridder. I was getting my information online, but I eventually realized that for people who read only newspapers in print (which was much more the case back then) a lot of the reality-based articles (regarding the true likelihood of weapons of mass destruction or an al Qaeda/Saddam connection, for example) were buried in the inside pages, whereas the false information was on the front page or in the hawkish editorials. (As for reality-based TV… look what happened to Phil Donahue.)
The antiwar movement also had issues. If you wanted to be involved in demonstrations against the (coming) war, ANSWER (formed by the International Action Center) was a major group helping to organize those protests, but there were many people who didn’t want to participate because they had problems with ANSWER. I didn’t understand that, since I thought the stakes were way too high to focus on the organizers rather than what we were trying to prevent. On the other hand, I thought ANSWER also wasn’t focused enough on the overriding goal—preventing war (as opposed to “Free Mumia,” etc.). But, especially in the beginning, when we could see the war was coming (but it was still months away), there was very little turnout, even in my city of protest, San Francisco. I wondered where the religious leaders were. (Some were bogged down in the ANSWER controversy.). Many of the protests in which I participated were barely covered (if at all) by any mainstream media.
Then again, I went to a “teach-in” about the coming war at Stanford. I saw Daniel Ellsberg speak on the subject at Cal. I saw Scott Ritter speak at a screening of the documentary about the inspections. They ALL said the administration was intent on war (no matter what BS was being spouted, and no matter what Hussein did or did not do)… while also agreeing such a war was completely unwarranted and unjustified. But many friends and relatives actually believed the administration’s accounts, and really thought war could be avoided if Hussein would just respond in the “right” way. They also believed the WMD stuff and often believed the al Qaeda connection…. so considered the war justified, in any case. It was a frustrating time.
Phlem
(6,323 posts)I never wanted to go into war with Iraq. I made personal note to myself that this was wrong and I didn't agree with it, but it happened anyway. To this day I am proud of my stance.
-p
LiberalLovinLug
(14,624 posts)According to a CBS News/New York Times poll, Americans support the idea of using military force to remove Saddam Hussein. But they overwhelmingly want diplomatic efforts and the inspections to run their course first -- they would want to see clear evidence against Iraq before going to war.
If the inspectors haven't found any weapons by next Tuesday -- a deadline for U.N. weapons inspectors to report their findings -- Americans say give them more time. Most Americans think those weapons are there to be found, though many doubt inspectors will find them.
The poll found 63% of Americans want President Bush to find a diplomatic solution.
It also found support for military action -- if it becomes necessary -- is still high, but it has slipped from just two months ago -- 64% now compared to 70% last November.
What's more, Americans seem to want hard evidence that Iraq is cheating. More than two-thirds (77% to 17%) say if inspectors haven't found a smoking gun, they should keep looking.
For the moment, diplomacy is the clearly favored course with regard to Iraq, a feeling that hasn't changed from two weeks ago.
WHAT SHOULD THE U.S. DO NOW WITH IRAQ?
Use military force:
31%
Find diplomatic solution:
63%
When the U.N. weapons inspectors present their report on January 27th, if they say they have not found any weapons of mass destruction, Americans strongly believe they should take more time to look. And even when this question is framed to put the burden of proof on Iraq - asking what the U.S. should do if Iraq cannot show proof that its weapons program has been shut down - Americans are equivocal about military action: half support a strike and half say the U.N. should still take more time.
___________________
Besides the whole gang of PNAC traitors, I blame the MSM and their lust for ratings and $. There was zero representatives of that majority opinion during the months of buildup to the invasion. I remember being appalled watching this happen like a horror show in slow motion. I do agree that bloodlust played a part, but most Americans preferred a diplomatic solution before the war, they wanted some kind of proof first. So......BushCo. supplied them with that "proof" and even trotted out the well respected Powell to be one of their messengers. I remember the administration in collusion with the MSM, created an air of inevitability. They had pro-war reps on every night and day, including some ex-generals later proved to have financial stakes in weapons industry, and at the same time ignored things like the largest protest in American history which happened in New York, half a million strong.
Erda
(218 posts)I was across the street from the World Trade Center during the 911 attack. I remember the fear and outrage that just about everyone felt that such a horrific thing could happen. Also, having the mail screened for anthrax, and the police cars rushing down Broadway at lightning speed in a show of force and then disappearing into nowhere. I remember armed servicemen outside of Grand Central Terminal and feeling grateful that they were there. I remember the strange death of Dr. David Kelley and the destruction of Valerie Plame's career because her husband dared challenge the Bush Administration. A lot of very strange (dare I say evil) things happened to keep politicians and the public at large in check. The mob mind controlled public discourse. I remember Phil Donahue as the lone television voice questioning that war and how he was taken off the air. The public at large was clearly made to feel afraid, and fear produces a surrendering of logic and of rights. Our brave young people wanted to kick the ass of the people who did this. They were fooled into believing it was Saddam Hussein. I was not deceived by Bush. I could tell just looking at his beady little eyes as he talked to the nation that he was lying. But a lot of people believed him and still do. And then after the war was underway, the courage of Cindy Sheehan as she dared challenge the Bush cabal and how she was portrayed as an unstable, grieving mother.
I hold the Bush Administration responsible for these things and for exploiting the vulnerability of the nation for Bush's "worthy cause" -- "either you are with us or you are against us" war.
Not everyone is politically aware. A lot of people are naive. A lot of people are afraid. I fault a government that recognizes the frailty of the public under attack and then manipulates it into war.
judesedit
(4,588 posts)the evil that Bushco was capable of. War for oil. With Tony Blair's help, of course. And for those who watch FAUX noise only, there was no alternative. As for people being bloodthirsty. I do agree with you there. You'd think we were back in gladiator times. The truth always comes out in the end. Just as 9/11 truth will. Many of the people in our government and their owners are super-corrupt. They were going to war no matter what for $$$$$$$.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)He's a lying POS and war criminal since Vietnam!
Rex
(65,616 posts)There were no WMDs, no drones coming our way and we already had Afghanistan to worry about.
No Iraq was just the shear gaul of evil men out to prove that the PNAC crowd could force us into a war we did not need or want with Iraq.
History shows this and will be very hard to change.
Ian David
(69,059 posts)It was also before we had Keith Olbermann or any Progressive voices in the media trying to set us straight.
And I hadn't even discovered DU yet.
Sidaroo
(2 posts)We need more posts like this.
Which Senator (who was up for re-election), voted against the war? (besides Wellstone).
From 1991 folks -- "weapons of mass destruction" repeated every 90 seconds during stories involving Iraq. Propaganda 101 folks. We should be ashamed.
If just a 5% of the population would have protested (e.g. 1960's) rather than 0.0001% things might have been different.
Instead we pounded the drums and you know what.
Long before the invasion, saying "peace" or "compassion" would almost cause a riot (and I'm sure there were many now-DU folks in the angry crowds). Ask Richard Gere, Harry Belafonte, Michael Moore, or the Dixie Chicks.
And when we were looking for some guts from a few commentators (i.e. to support Mr. Belafonte et al) -- none. Chris (top cheerleading fake-patriot) Mathews, Bill (I didn't say it, I didn't say it) Maher, blah blah. These heros are now very liberal gutso guys you have noticed, much respected on du.
Thanks MadHound.
totodeinhere
(13,688 posts)the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq
John2
(2,730 posts)was drummed up by the American Media and Politicians. The Right in this country also gave their side of the Vietnam Era. People just didn't want to be viewed as weak, especially after the Reaganites took full credit for bringing down the Soviet Union although it took a long time for that to happen through many Presidents. The Right in this country took advantage of the times and especially after the first War with Iraq. It gave us a chance to test our new toys.
So public Opinion was very high for War, but it didn't go as planned. They were believing two men that had no real experience in War and dodged a War in their time ( Bush and Cheney). That is what we have in the present Republican Party. Once Bush took Florida and became President, he knew that he could get away with anything. Do the American people really think there has been a worst President and Vice President in our history than Bush and Cheney? The same Republicans are trying to sell us that President Obama is like with all other Democratic Presidents since Carter. It is the same Party that tried to impeach a President. It is one of the reasons I'm a Democrat. The other party is too extreme. And I think Romnney\Ryan would have topped Bush\Cheney. Their whole candidacy was based on lies. It is a normal thing with them now.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)office knew better, yet many still voted to invade a country they knew was no threat to the US and we are still waiting for them to be held accountable for that crime.
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Is it time to round up Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld for arranging 9/11 with the Saudis?
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
snot
(11,623 posts)While I grant you there may have been a lot of people who reacted as you describe, I think most people are just too easily influenced by the media they're immersed in.
And the vast majority of the media were decidedly pro-war. Even the NYT was failing to report important reasons for doubt, such as the fact that the aluminum tubes could have non-nuclear uses (I actually heard/saw this from only ONE source, BBC radio in the middle of our night); indeed, the NYT squeezed out Pullitzer-winning Chris Hedges for expressing an opinion against the war, while giving Judith Miller plenty space. And back then, even I actually assumed the Times deserved more credibility.
U.S. citizens have been trained to become passive consumers of media, along with other products, rather than citizens capable of critical thinking. The media they're immersed in matters; and 95% of traditional media worldwide are owned by 6 megacorps.
cartach
(511 posts)You put together an accurate outline of what happened. And we are again trying to put the blame on those at the top when many others deserve a share. I can remember way back that we were informed and knew the truth about the ongoing rush to war and yet there just wasn't enough protesting to stop it or even slow it down. Many times I wondered how much it would take for enough people to take to the streets to convince those in power to stop. Obviously and unfortunately,those who ignored the truth and sat complacently back or worse,those who called for the invasion of Iraq and the elimination of Saddam Hussein, point to the true character of the majority of American people. Many innocents as well as members of the American Forces were killed or maimed and justice still has not been served.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)This was in large measure the fault of the media!
The media downplayed demonstrations starting with those at the inauguration where there were thousands of Hail to the Thief protestors.
Protests continued and increased as BushCo ramped up its call to war against innocent Iraq, but such protests got little to no media coverage and tellingly, the media gave no play to the Scott Ritters of the world, to the weapons inspectors or to those who refuted the claims of Iraq's power by recounting that nation's prostration as a result of the 1991 war (another f'ing Bush) and the subsequent years of sanctions and bombings. Instead, Cheney, Condiliar and other PNACers had free, unchallenged reign over the media... and not just FOX but quite often NBC's Meet the Press. Then came that POS war criminal Powell's UN performance, also widely televised.
As you so aptly pointed out, Democrats, notably those cowards with their political fingers in the wind (no profiles in courage there) who voted for the IWR in October 2002, didn't help matters much. They include some DU favs: Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, John Edwards, Dodd... and others who ran for POTUS in either 2004 or 2008. But they have blood on their hands and always will!
So, yes, some American people wanted vengeance but many were/are just plain ignorant and swallowed the TV news spiel hook, line and sinker. That is one reason a corporate owned and consolidated media has been the death knell for reasoned debate in this country.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)The collective American psyche wanted war, badly. People have known for a long time about the lies surrounding the Vietnam war. Following that, I think it's possible that many people expected and accepted deception from the government when it came to war. More people share Barbara Bushes "beautiful mind" mentality than that of an investigative reporter who wants to get to the truth.
Nitram
(27,384 posts)Speaking for myself, and I see no reason why I should be unique, I was very skeptical of the push to invade Iraq. I was very angry when Bush ordered the UN inspectors out of the country. I had no anger against Iraqis. I knew that notions that Sadaam Hussein and al Qaeda were in league were not true because the two were mortal enemies. I was, however, concerned about reports of nukes that could be ready in 24 hours, of chemical and biological weapons. And it was Colin Powell's testimony that persuaded me there was a real and present danger. We now know that it was all based on faulty intelligence, unreliable informants and wishful neocon thinking. We sere most definitely tricked.
Waiting For Everyman
(9,385 posts)Nixon's two elections and his covert persecution of any who resisted saw to that. Nothing was done about VN, so our future path was chosen, and followed, along its logical trajectory. In 1% thinking, whatever works is done again, and again, and again...