2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Hillary Clinton vs Bernie Sanders on Whether to Invade Iraq - 2002 [View all]Martin Eden
(12,956 posts)A solid case can be made that the invasion and the lies leading up to it were crimes, if you want to talk about the law.
I haven't forgotten the fraudulent fearmongering and people running out to buy duct tape & plastic sheeting to seal up their windows against biochem weapons. I was here at DU in 2002.
What kind of leadership do you want for the Democratic Party -- calculating politicians who stick their finger in the wind and jump aboard the war wagon that's heading over the cliff -- or strong leaders who are not afraid to speak truth to power and stand up for the interests of the American people?
Doing it the way you apparently support (jumping aboard the war wagon) was NOT a winning strategy for the 2002 midterm elections. Democrats lost control of congress.
And Democratic voters along with independents had equal contempt for both parties when "Mission Accomplished" devolved into protracted bloody chaos like so many here predicted. I'm not saying a strong principled stance would have won the 2002 election, though I'm not ruling that out. I'm saying the Democratic Party and its leaders (including Hillary Clinton) would now be in a much stronger position politically if they had the smarts and the courage to oppose the idiotic rush to war in 2002 & 2003.
No matter how you slice it, congressional Democrats who voted for the war (slightly less than half the Senate/House total) helped to enable a disaster that has been extremely costly in blood, treasure, and national security. They failed us when we needed them the most.
Those who try to rationalize or excuse that failure really need to step back and ask themselves why, then consider supporting candidates who showed much better judgement.
Edit history
![](du4img/smicon-reply-new.gif)