How was it that with the entire world and most of us against an Iraq attack George Bush managed

[rainy]

to get congress to go for it? It was the largest protested war ever. Now all I hear are politicians saying well my constituents are against it so I'll vote no. The democrats' constituents were against the Iraq war and they still voted for it. Am I remembering it wrong? Were most americans for it? I don't remember the numbers. I know fox viewers were for it. I'm starting to remember it was the media that beat the drums and now the media are supporting the reluctant this time. Is it all about who the media supports?

[arcane1]

1. Is it all about who the media supports? Yes.

We who opposed Iraq were painted as terrorist sympathizers. Our dissent emboldened our enemies. Yer with us or against us.

The list goes on...

[hughee99]

9. The media found out in 1991 that war = $$$

Since then, I don't recall seeing any real opposition to any war from the major news outlets.

[LaydeeBug]

19. except now. Funny that.

And I've started calling all of the chicken hawks of yesteryear chicken doves, because I just don't know what to make of them.

At least we were against all the wars.

But I do get pissed when they start bitching about how we're going to pay for it. I tell them "Iraqi Oil Revenues"

[PowerToThePeople]

2. Times have changed

More people are connected via the internet/facebook//DU/etc than ever before. There may have been more people in the streets for Iraq protests, but were there more phone calls/emails to representatives?

[Politicalboi]

3. We were attacked

Is what they say. Even though Saddam and others AKA Goat Herder had nothing to do with it. They convinced Faux viewers that Saddam did play a part. Ask them today, and they'll say the same thing. And now Assad is using those weapons to attack his own people.

Or could it be that we have a blaaa...President. Nah!

[Scootaloo]

4. You really want to know?

Bush could have called for an invasion of Malaysia and so long as his administration showed photographs of minarets and people at prayer, the US public would have gulped down whatever other nonsense he had to offer.

it wasn't a slip when he called it a "crusade," though perhaps he didn't intend it. no, Americans are well-simmered in the rhetoric of "clash of civilizations" and as we see ourselves as the pinnacle of achievement in "The West" we seem to consider it a vital duty to continue the work of crusaders past.

That there are numerous propaganda operations lobbying on behalf of a nation that happens to benefit from the utter bestialization of Arabs and Muslims in the US also contributes - a one-sided story where people who practice Islam can only ever be these evil, loathsome creatures who must be opposed, defeated, and destroyed at all costs. Hell, we just had an example of this on DU a few weeks ago, where people were literally cheering the slaughter of Egyptians in the streets of Cairo "because they're Islamist." This, on DU, a supposed bulwark of liberalism.

If it weren't for twelve years of unproductive war causing emotional exhaustion in Americans, I imagine the public would be falling over itself to not just bomb Syria but to invade it.

[truedelphi]

5. For one thing, Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein carried a lot of weight in the US Senate.

And boy oh boy did she ever want that war.

And due to how Feinstein had re-written the entire ethics code that once had offered some protection for the average US citizens from elected officials' predatory rampages against both the national treasury and the nation's service people, she knew if she could convince enough other "D" Senators to vote for the Iraq War Resolution, (IWR) then she would have it made in the shade until she was in the grave.

Within six months of our "Shock and Awe" attack on the people of Iraq, her husband, Richard Blum, had earned up to 27 million dollars of profit. Oh to be a contractor, married to a powerful woman senator! And to know that most of the time, a person didn't have to even fulfill the war contracts, as when the work is supposed to happen inside a nation where everything is being blown up, well, who cares?

By the end of the our involvement in the Iraq War, Feinstein/Blum had over 750 millions of dolalrs of war contracts! Often Feinstein's ability to have hearings in which war generals testified as to the future projections of the military in Iraq, allowed the couple insider access to information as to what was going to be need in terms of Iraq "re-construction" efforts and also war necessities.

If you consider that many of our trusted and elected "public servants" in the House have just as much greed inside their soulless life forms as Feinstein does, and you have your answer.

Meanwhile, those who voted against the IWR, like Congresswoman Barbara Lee, had to defend themselves against death threats!

[Cleita]

6. I never understood why Bush was supported, but I remember back then, it was like

we had stepped into an alternate universe. All the reporters and anchors on the news who were trying to report the facts lost their jobs, the most famous being Dan Rather and Bill Moyers. Then all liberals were called names like they were some kind of fringe vermin. It took us several years to get some alternate media like Air America Radio. Then MSNBC started allowing some progressive programming like Keith Olbermann. We still are somewhat on the fringe with the MSM, but not as badly as back then when our media had became all Pravda for awhile. Now though we have taken over the internet sufficiently that the opposition can't bamboozle us anymore. They can't stop us. I think this is why the NSA is so interested in getting all our information. But I don't think the truth can't be stopped anymore.

[Thinkingabout]

7. W had plenty of GOP yes boys in Congress who were big hawks and gave W everything he wanted.

I just received email from John Culberson-R TX who beat the drums for the invasion of Iraq but he has many reasons against striking Syria now and it is obvious it has a lot to do with the D behind Obama's name. I get told the reason why the U S invaded Iraq is because Democrats voted for the strike. Bush lied all the way, he could nit say the reason was because Saddam "threatened his Daddy". In the past few days I have heard stories of chemical weapons being furnished to Saddam to gas Iran, Daddy Bush was in CIA and Saddam was their guy in exile in Egypt and they facilitated his placement in power. Dirty rotten scoundrels.

[leveymg]

8. Not true, unfortunately. About 50-60% of Americans polled in March '03 supported the invasion

The support numbers are much lower today for any sort of US military action in Syria. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_United_States_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq

The United States public's opinion of the invasion of Iraq has changed significantly since the years preceding the incursion. For various reasons, mostly related to the unexpected consequences of the invasion, as well as misinformation provided by US authorities, the US public’s perspective on its government’s choice to initiate an offensive is increasingly negative. Before the invasion in March 2003, polls showed 47-60% of the US public supported an invasion, dependent on U.N. approval.[1] According to the same poll retaken in April 2007, 58% of the participants stated that the initial attack was a mistake.[2] In May 2007, the New York Times and CBS News released similar results of a poll in which 61% of participants believed the U.S. "should have stayed out" of Iraq.[3]

[rainy]

17. That's what I couldn't remember, how the majority felt.

We had large protests but the media never showed up for those and free speech zones were invented.

[Avalux]

10. Most of us were not against it.

The media promoted the lies and most Americans bought into it - 9/11 helped.

[KittyWampus]

11. Because the lapdog press was kissing his ass.

[PlanetaryOrbit]

12. I think it's because it was still only about 1.5 years after 9/11.

America was still in the mood to go to war, or at least not put up tremendous resistance against it.


Had it been 2004 or 2005, I doubt Bush would have gotten enough Congressional support, but back in early 2003, it was still possible.

[mountain grammy]

13. Those who did have the courage (mostly Dems) to vote against

the resolution to allow use of the military in Iraq were labeled "un-American" and "traitors," and those against the war were marginalized by our media. Our government is unresponsive because we are unresponsive.

[Precisely]

14. Because Bush/Cheney was going to war anyway and everyone knew it.

[UTUSN]

15. The Dem congresscritters feared wingnut slander against them more than they listened to constituents

Shrub's string-pullers CHEENEE-Rums had 30-40 yrs' experience in government behind the scenes trickery. They knew the Draft was a major fuel of the Vietnam protests, so they knocked that out from the get-go. But the major thing was 9-11, including the humiliation and the perception that something/anything had to be revenge, and the Selectee head of government could hardly be shunned in a time of crisis. Mostly cowardice from Dems and the built-in incompetence in the government oversight apparatus.

As for "the largest protested war ever", hmmm. Maybe worldwide, with some state organization.

*********QUOTE********

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_the_Iraq_War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[font size=5]Protests against the Iraq War[/font]

Beginning in 2002, and continuing after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, large-scale protests against the Iraq War were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion.[1]

These demonstrations against the war were mainly organized by anti-war organizations, many of whom had been formed in opposition to the invasion of Afghanistan. In some Arab countries demonstrations were organized by the state. Europe saw the biggest mobilization of protesters, including a rally of three million people in Rome, which is listed in the Guinness Book of Records as the largest ever anti-war rally.[2]

According to the French academic Dominique Reynié, between January 3 and April 12, 2003, 36 million people across the globe took part in almost 3,000 protests against the Iraq war.[3] ....

[font size=5]Scope and impact in the United States[/font]

A March 2003 Gallup poll conducted during the first few days of the war showed that 5% of the population had protested or made a public opposition against the war compared to 21% who attended a rally or made a public display to support the war.[6] An ABC news poll showed that 2% had attended an anti-war protest and 1% attended a pro-war rally. The protests made 20% more opposed to the war and 7% more supportive.[7] A Fox News poll showed that 63% had an unfavorable view of the protesters, just 23% had a favorable view.[7] According to Pew Research, 40% said in March 2003 that they had heard "too much" from people opposed to the war against 17% who said "too little".[8]

Some observers have noted that the protests against the Iraq war have been relatively small-scale and infrequent compared to protests against the Vietnam War. One of the most often cited factors for this is the lack of conscription.[9][10]

*************UNQUOTE*************

[Pale Blue Dot]

16. 9/11. Period. nt

[spanone]

18. my LOCAL news did three minutes on the 'nationwide protests'

against the 'syrian war'