Did anybody here initially support the War in Iraq?

[Dark]

I did at first. I did not complain when he refused to show any proof to the American people, or even to the UN. WE ARE COMMON FOLK, whether we want to admit it or not. And to allow possibly dangerous information out into the people is foolish, as it could wind up in the hands of the terrorists.

But when he refused to show anyone in Congress that's when I became suspicious. After all, the average joe could be a terrorist in America, but a congressman? What was Bu$h thinking? If he can trust congress to support and condone his war, then he should be able to show them his reasons for going to war.

That is when I began to feel uncomfortable about the war. Then, as more and more nations refused to butress the conflict, even simply on paper, I really began to worry. I'm just curious if I was in a minority in being foolish enough to trust Bu$h. But it is sad.

The American people should be able to trust the President.

[Heyo]

1. I did...

And I still do.

Heyo.

[wtmusic]

15. So you're into that vigilante justice kind of thing?

Let's string 'im up! He kinda looks DANGEROUS to me! :eyes:

[Kathy in Cambridge]

24. No surprise there

:eyes:

[Beetwasher]

30. Care To Elaborate?

Or are you too afraid of getting spanked? Too cowardly to defend your beliefs?

[Kathy in Cambridge]

35. Again, no surprise there

:eyes:

[Heyo]

54. You ain't gonna spank me, homie...

It's just a fundamental different way we look at things obviously.

You are free to believe what you believe, as am I.

Neither one of us is going to convince the other into switching to their side.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

best regards,

-Heyo

[Beetwasher]

57. Uh Huh, Whatever You Say Chester

Hard to defend the idefensible I guess, so why try? How pathetic...Run away, run away!

Obviously you have neither the intellect, character, resolve, integrity, passion or principles to defend your position. I didn't think you did, but I thought I'd give you a shot. You proved me right.

Suit up soldier, our boys need your help!

[Heyo]

68. Dude....

I almost fell out of my chair laughing just now....

Thanks.

BTW. If you'll chill out with the personal insults, I'd be more than happy to debate with you about the actual subject at hand.

You think I'm afraid of that? Ha! You started off by calling me a coward right off the bat, the very first SENTENCE... before I had said 2 words, what do you expect? You don't know me.

You jumped right to personal attacks so instantaneously.. I question the point in debating it with you. As far as I am concerned, we just have a fundamental disagreement... apparently that bothers you alot more than it does me.

Seems like all you've done so far is scream and cry because I don't agree with you, spewing a string of hatred my way, and we're only like 2 or 3 posts in.

You can seethe and rage all you want... good luck with that.

I'm here if you want to debate.

Heyo

[dpibel]

72. My opinon's as good as your opinion

Ah, modern American discourse.

When did we come to the point where all one need to say is, "It's my opinion and I'm entitled to it?"

I always thought an opinion was about as good as the argument you can muster to support it. But no more. Nowadays, just having an opinion is all a person needs.

Oh, and getting one's feelings hurt if somebody calls you on it. That's good, too.

[Kanary]

49. Do you have directions to your local military office to sign up?

[sangh0]

65. Have you signed up with an NGO to go to Iraq

and help the poor, innocent Iraqis?

I've seen you express support for those who help the poor. Instead of paying lip service or questioning OTHER people's credibility, why don't YOU volunteer to do something?

[GOPisEvil]

52. Shocking.

[belle]

2. No. I did support the war in Afghanistan, or anyway I didn't protest it.

Iraq: no. No way.

[calimary]

59. Reluctantly for the Afghanistan war. COMPLETELY against the Iraq war.

From the beginning I felt that going into Iraq was wrong, stupid, ill-advised, and destined to be much more of a disaster than all the feel-goods out there were predicting. It had NOTHING to do with 9/11. Proud to say I protested fairly early - like in October and November of 2002. I was complaining to my reps before that, even. Since then, my opposition has just grown stronger every day.

[still_one]

3. I was against us going into Iraq before we went in

and am still against it.

On the other hand I believe we had no choice about Afganistan, and because we have diverted all our resources to Iraq, al quada and the whole terrorist network has had time to regroup

[Jane Austin]

21. I was against the Iraq war totally

and then Colin Powell went before the UN with all his supposedly incontrovertible evidence.

Then I reluctantly thought we might need to go in, but not in such a rush. I mean, I was hoping we might find those WMD's or even that the Iraqi people might get rid of him themselves before we invaded, therefore making the invasion unnecessary.

I was had by Colin Powell, but by watching Wes Clark on CNN at the time I maintained a much more skeptical outlook than if he hadn't been on television during the buildup.

[calimary]

60. Hey, a whole lot of people were had by Colin Powell.

My husband was even taken in for awhile. MAINLY because it was Colin Powell making the case, which I think was the objective in the first place. Who could deny or question General Integrity? Fortunately, my husband soon was able to pull the wool from in front of his own eyes. He hasn't been fooled since.

[Jane Austin]

64. I stilled opposed the war - at least at that time,

but I feared it was becoming inevitable.

[chelsea0011]

4. Never! Never! Never!

[demnan]

5. Iraqnam?

Hell no.

[Avalux]

6. NO - never did.

Knew what the Busheviks were up to from the beginning.

[phatkatt]

Not for a second

It didn't take too much brain power to see through their thinly-veiled justifications.

[Skittles]

7. UM

WTF does WE ARE COMMON FOLK mean? We do have COMMON SENSE and, uh, they DID STEAL THE ELECTION and it was QUITE OBVIOUS THEY WERE LYING THEIR ASSES OFF. Please!

[Dark]

9. It means that

We are not part of the government and therefore are not privy to every piece of intelligence and information our government gleans from its sources. I didn't mean it as an insult, I just don't think that the government has to be candid on every issue; they just are not allowed to lie (as Bu$h in effect did). There are some things that, for national security, the average joe just should not know.

[Skittles]

32. OK I agree with you there but

I'm sorry, it was all just too obvious they were looking for any excuse to go to Iraq. It was F***ING OBVIOUS THEY WERE LYING.

[Raenelle]

8. No. Because I never trusted the Chimp. . . not about anything, ever.

[salin]

10. Nope never did.

Back in the Spring of 2002 - when he (and they, refering to the admin) started pushing the rhetoric... the funniest thing started happening. A claim of the danger would be made... and debunked within 48 hours in the international press. The US press rarely carried the debunked story... however often the story would just be dropped.

Started with the Bush/Blair press conference, I believe in the Spring of 2002, when Bush claims that an IAEA report said that Iraq was months away from nuclear bomb capabilities. Quickly - shown that a) there was no report; and b) the closest report from which very loose claims could have been made was written in 1998 and said nothing about a timeline til production (and I believe refered to pre Gulf War 1 capabilities and the destruction of those capabilities in the intervening years due to the weapons inspectors.)

In the summer there were numerous odd little stories... al qeada was in iraq said rummy... oops turns out they were loosely related to a group of anti saddam rebels outside of the region controlled by saddam. Then there was a wierd connection of testing/torture of animals by the Taliban (with a gross tape) that was somehow connected to Iraq... forget the quick debunking but that story dropped as well. There were the aluminum tubes that were discredited (but not widely in the US press - so the admin kept pushing that story). The "report" about Saddams capabilities pushed by the Brits in early September 2002 - that was quickly shown as drawn from a master's degree thesis written years earlier based on data from before 1991. And so on and so on.

If one followed the news outside of the US - always looking for multiple sources to either verify the admins rhetoric, or to discredit the newest point of admin rhetoric, then it was easy to see the whole thing was a sham.

And while I am no fan of Saddam, I was greatly concerned that we started pulling troops, money and intelligence out of Afghanistan by late Spring of 2002. And alarmed at increasing reports (again through the international press) of first the regrouping of al qeada in the border lands between afghanistan and pakistan, and later the regrouping of the Taliban and concern that they were starting to reclaim areas (in part because the lawlessness in areas was so bad that some felt the repressive talibban were better in terms of the most basic security needs.) So, to my eyes, there was a HUGE cost of the shift to Iraq - and the arguments for Iraq were apparently being contrived for public consumption.

Then there was the concern that pushing Iraq - especially in absense of international consensus - in a way to promote the bush doctrine of aggressive pre-emptive war... would cause over the long run a geopolitical realignment. The US, as the sole superpower, has overall been viewed as benevolent in absense of a balancing power. However actions in Iraq could potentially tip other blocks of countries, concerned that the US might start acting more and more capriciously, to form coalitions (economic, diplomatic, and military) to try to create a balance. Indeed on this front - go back to the nuclear crisis between India and Pakistan, where we ended up taking a back seat in negotiating down the crisis due to our complex reliances on Pakistan... and suddenly it was Putin and Russia who played the major diplomatic role in that crisis. Turn your eyes to our handling in North Korea over the past 2 years and you can see our increased reliance on others (in this case... China) to play the moderating role to attempt to deescalate the situation.

Speaking of North Korea.. then there was that item of holding back by two to three weeks the reports of NKoreas escalation of nuclear arms program - so that it wasn't released until after the war vote. Why? Except of course then the question would have been raised why are we attending to a "possible threat" (even lower level if one paid attention to the international debunking of the US claims) - in the face of a real one in the hands of a very unreliable, unpredictable, repressive dictator. That in and of itself, in my mind, was damning for the administration.

[NeoConsSuck]

11. I never supported the first Gulf war,

much less this one..

[ACK]

12. No ... hell no

Did not support the war.

I knew about the PNAC.

I knew how long they had been planning this.

I knew that this was a red herring so they could implement a new strategy of proactive, pre-emptive war.

Always question authority.

Always... both Dem and Repuke.

_

[wtmusic]

13. No. Never. And you shouldn't have.

We had an obligation with the UN, clearly delineated in the Charter which we signed, to not attack any nation which did not attack us first, period, end of story.

There is no justification for this illegal and immoral invasion. Anyone who thinks otherwise is an ethical infant.

[SCDem]

14. Nope I never did.

I saw through it from the beginning. I don't know why are congress or media or the majority of Americans couldn't see what I saw.

[calimary]

61. You, like many of us, considered the source. Sadly, most of the rest

of America, fed and encouraged by a partisan media, did NOT. In fact, back then, you weren't supposed to consider anything. You were just supposed to take their word for it. For me, their "word" never had any value because I knew who these people were and what they were really about.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

16. NO!

who the hell trusts republicans??

[ET Awful]

17. Not I, I never supported it.

I didn't object to Afghanistan, but I was opposed to going into Iraq.

[JanMichael]

18. I only recall a couple of Pro-Invasion DU'ers.

Who shall remain nameless.

[tjwash]

19. Not even in '91.

I knew back then, that the US was shopping for a war in 1990. Hell, the rubble had not even been cleared from the Berlin wall, and the fall of the iron curtain yet. Those hawks at the pentagon needed an enemy, and needed one quickly, and Iraq presented itself as the most likely candidate. Bush1 stated his assault of propaganda and international coercion, satisfying all his war needs at the time by selling, creating, and moving with great deliberation toward a war against Iraq.

Just like his son with 9-11, bush1 fell into the best fortune he could have had, when Iraq invaded Kuwait. A few days later, our Senators could scarcely contain their joy in announcing that "the B-2 'stealth' bomber could obviously not be scrapped now, as it has a 'new mission' ". Oh, by the way there is that little thing of Kuwait having billions in the U.S. stock market, and billions in government treasury bills that could be liquidated immediately, and that, the Sabah family were good friends of the US, and Kuwait's human rights record under the US propped dictatorial family is among the most dismal in the middle east.

I'm sorry, what was the question again?

[slinkerwink]

20. nope, I never supported it

[Mrs. Venation]

22. Not Just No . . . Hell No!

I have not believed one word this sorry excuse for a president has uttered about Iraq. Lies, lies and more lies. We have sacrificed our young warriors and thousands of Iraqi citizens because Saddam tried to kill Bush the elder.

I thought we had no alternative in Afghanistan; Al Queda and the Taliban are enemies of the civilized world and they are legitimate targets. The keyword here is are and not were. If the same level of effort and troop strength had been applied to Afghanistan the Taliban would be vanquished and not reorganizing to become a dominant force again; Al Queda would be a minimal threat and Afghanistan would be on the road to becoming a peaceful country.

The war in Iraq was never about terrorism. It was based on lies, lies, lies. I despise this evil administration. :grr: :grr: :grr:

[truthspeaker]

23. supported the military buildup but not the war

The military buildup was successful in getting Saddam to readmit UN inspectors. But the decision to go to war itself was idiotic, especially when it flew in the face of what Bush had said previously: the inspectors didn't find any WMDs and diplomacy had certainly not "failed".

[LWolf]

25. "able to trust the president?"

Sure, we should be able to trust our president. But not this one. Anyone who lived through Bush I knew better than to trust Bush II. And if that wasn't enough to convince you, the 2000 Florida/supreme court selection fiasco should have been nailed that coffin shut.

No. I did not support the war in Iraq. I never believed there was a 9-11 connection. I didn't believe Saddam was a threat to the United States. I still don't. I did believe that Jr. would be happy to use Daddy's history with Saddam to further his own agenda.

[NewHampster]

26. I plead most horribly Guilty - But my Wife won't forgive me.

Fought with my Deaniac wife for months over it until I saw the error of my ways and asked her forgiveness.

Penitence was joining the Dean campaign and giving up my life for a couple of months.

Irish Christian that she is, I'm still not completely forgiven.

    

[BurtWorm]

34. Interesting, New Hampster. I didn't know that about you.

What made you turn? (If it was something like Lysistrata, I don't really need an answer! ;) )

[NewHampster]

36. The whole story on seeing the light

Like many others I fell for Colin Powell and the hypnotic subliminal vibes the admin sent over the tube. I sort of knew it was a sick joke after a day or two of war with no resistance.

I'm actually the usually pacifist lib in the family but because I was starting a new business last year I refused to get involved or listen to anything related to politics. As I told my wife, if I get involved I obsess.

We met Dean in the fall. I instigated it because I wanted her to hear him. First we saw him in Manchester then a house party in Windham that night. I heard the message loud and clear.

I pushed Dian to stop yapping and go volunteer for him. She did, every night for months. I'm proud of her.

Then she had me fill in for her at a committee meeting and well, I started to obsess, ignore my business and have lots of fun, join DU after the primary and go steadily down hill.

[BurtWorm]

37. Obsessive progressives have more fun!

Even if they can't afford it.

[NewHampster]

39. I like that. I may use it.

Obsessive Progressive

[catmandu57]

27. There was a few

I haven't seen any of then around for a while.

[AgadorSparticus]

28. stealing the election made me very skeptical of anything he did.

i never supported iraq. his slippery tongue didn't charm me one bit.

[Lugnut]

40. Same here.

I haven't believed any Repukes since the Nixon administration. Call me skeptical.....

[seabeyond]

29. my initial reaction, vietnam.

didnt we learn all those years ago this doesnt work

then i saw he was going to do, and listening to him at u.n. and then listening to powell, who i thought had more integrity

i told husband, he has to know something we dont know. and even with that, still i said, surely he wouldnt lie about this, he would be caught, (my thought if a lie is catchable you dont do, again another mistake with bush). and if he lies, who he is going to be sooooo in trouble. (again, not the case)

after getting into baghdad in just days, and started seeing time and again missteps, and knew it would go to quagmire, bush didnt have a clue how to do this in integrity and honesty, and then seeing the beginning he didnt know anything about honor.

bush created it all..........didnt have to be this way

i knew the liar he was, who he was yet i knew they were going in and there was nothing i could do to stop, so i went to lets get it done over with and out. more for the soldiers. and give the people their country without saddam. more for the iraqi people

[supernova]

31. Reporting for pacifist duty, sir

No I did not support this illeagal war in Iraq. I would have opposed it based on the complete disregard and defiance of the UN. I also opposed it because I knew about PNAC and their true agenda of domination through unending war. This sick mentality is not something I want my country turning to.

PNAC MUST BE STOPPED AT ALL COSTS!

Orion523, you're my favorite constellation, but you seem woefully ill-informed.

[Dark]

38. Actually

I don't support the war anymore. I used to be a 'shrudder' conservative when I was younger. Then, as time went on, I began to see more and more logical fallacies within the right's arguements. By 17, I was at about the same political position I am right now. Currently, the only political issue that I side with the right on is Abortion. Everything else the repukes support I disdain.

[oldcoot]

33. No!

I believed and still believe that this war was an enormous blunder. I was disturbed by the overly optimistic attitudes of the hawks in the administration. I also believed that troops would be fighting a nasty, urban guerrilla war.

One of the many things I dislike about the Bush administration is the fact that this administration is so secretive. Administration officials try to control every bit of information that is released to the public and the U.S. Congress. They are obviously hiding something. It sounds like you started questioning them early on and I hope that more Americans come to the same conclusions that you did.

[Blue_Tires]

41. i must also confess

that i did, after seeing powell's slideshow to the UN...i was actually dumb enough to believe the intelligence was real

[Generator]

46. I too was convinced

by Powell's speech before the UN. I marched against the first Gulf War, and found myself in the strange shoes of being a liberal in support of the War.

I was wrong. I was misled, manipulated and duped. WMD was the reason, the reason was false. As Kristen Britweiser(Jersey Girl) said last night on Hardball, "What has changed in the intelligence community?"
The intelligence is a joke. Tenet must be fired, but he won't be because he isn't at fault. They ignore what they want and listen to what supports their world view.

I am still happy that Saddam was taken down. Now we have a coming civil war, and much ignorance of taking on the threat alone without backing of support in troops and money from our allies. It's a disaster.

And I have to say for any of you that looked at the war and bought it, look at 9/11. I couldn't stand the thought that my government might have anything to do with it. It was too painful. But the facts are out there if you take the time to look. It hurts like hell. The negligence, the arrogance, the hubris, the lies. They say in a court of law, if they lie about one thing, then it's a good chance that everything they say is open to doubt. Bingo.

And they subtly and not so subtly used 9/11 as a pre-text for the "common folk" to believe in the war in Iraq. I knew Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11 but I bought the idea that weapons he had (it was a fact, wasn't it? HAH) could be given to terrorists and used against us. But they used me, they used my grief, when they didn't even do anything to defend us against 9/11. Sorry for the rant,but this administration if not defeated in November will go down as the worst in our history. It will end in shame and disgrace that trumps Watergate by tenfold. Truth will out.

[MAlibdem]

42. I did...

I didn't really care about WMDs though.

I believed and still believe that a functioning democracy in Iraq is possible and that the US should do all it can to establish it.

I would have greatly preferred an international coalition of democratic nations to give birth to a new democratic state, but the Bush Administration apparently didn't get my memo.

[gypsy11]

43. Nope

[greatauntoftriplets]

44. I have opposed every war the US has been involved in

since Vietnam.

[Oddman]

45. NO!!! I am a 10%er

And proud of it. I always knew this was a war based on revenge and nothing more. bu$h wanted to avenge the assassination attempt on daddy bu$h, that's what it was pure and simple - REVENGE!x(

I still can't fathom the fact that this loser had a 90% approval rating after 9/11. . .

[Eurobabe]

47. Bejeezuz no, esp. not IRAQ

[Zorra]

48. No.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

50. Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!

There were more than several alternatives that should have been exhausted. Intensive border containment, increasing the number and character of inspectors, using the military strategically to force inspections, surveillance, special forces and a little SKILLED diplomacy instead of the hardheaded lying blustering and demands made by the Bush administration.

The first bombs dropped were intended to kill Hussein. Invasion, overthrow and installation of a new government is the most hideous thing we could have done at the time we did it. It was totally uncalled for and Bush should be impeached.

[Atlanticist]

51. Absolutely not

I was as opposed in Jan/Feb last year as I am now. It didn't take too much brainpower to see that every time Bush or Blair proffered an apocalyptic vision of mad Saddam at his chemical set, within 48 hours, it was shown to be bogus.

I said that that if Bush and Blair invaded, we'd radicalise a generation of Muslims. Looks like we're reaping the whirlwind.

I feel absolutely terrible about all this. I could see this was the way things would end up, and I'm delighted that Bush is being shown up as having no clue about how to sort out this mess - mind you, he's got time to put his feet up in Crawford I see - you guys must at least be impressed with your Presidents incredible sang froid. However, we shouldn't forget that thousands are dying now, and Bush has got to sort this out quickly. Bombing mosques and killing children is not going to impress moderate Muslims however, though if it impresses enough Republican voters in November, it will have been worth it.

[mmonk]

53. Never did

but I feel I've seen deception to sell war before. Ever since, I don't take things out of blind faith or allegiance, I look for proof.

[ConcernedCanuk]

55. Nope, not for a second. and I NEVER trusted GW. I thot BC was fine.

[genius]

56. No Against it all the way

From the beginning.

[Selwynn]

58. Never did. Ever.

[noiretextatique]

62. bush, inc is illegitimate

eom

[Van Helsing]

63. I never have...

and I never will. It was the biggest mistake to ever go into Iraq.

[kdmorris]

66. No, I never have...

I've always believed that this was about oil and that the only thing that would come out of it was thousands of innocent dead. And I wish I had been wrong. :cry:

[TheDebbieDee]

67. I was a supporter of the war.........

And I still support the troops.

I began to slowly see the light when I found out that Halliburton, Cheney's company, got no-bid contracts to to do work in Iraq.

Things really turned around for me a few weeks after the war started when I realized that if Iraq really had WMDs, or was even close to developing these WMDs,Isreal wouldn't have wasted no time going in there to blow stuff up. (The Isrealis blew up a nuclear power plant in Iraq in the early 80s before it could be completed.)

But, we're in for a penny, in for a pound. I think we should have put enough boots on the ground in the first place to get the job done right from the git-go. I place the blame squarely on Rumfeld's shoulders for letting the 4th ID's equipment sit off the coast of Turkey for a month in the run-up to the war while we haggled with them for the use of their ports.

[Kitsune]

69. No.

I don't support ANY war.

[spanone]

70. No.

[mulethree]

71. No delivery mechanisms, UN inspectors doing drop-in

visits and finding nothing, and we were sure they were screwing up but wouldn't show them evidence or intelligence so they'd know where else to look.

Somehow haveing Cheney for a VP makes me want hard evidence.