I understand your dance around this one. Three Democrats voted against the attack on Iraq.

actually, 23 voted against the war reolution,,,here's the actual vote tally from the senate website...

Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---77
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bayh (D-IN)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bond (R-MO)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carnahan (D-MO)
Carper (D-DE)
Cleland (D-GA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Edwards (D-NC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Frist (R-TN)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-FL)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Santorum (R-PA)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)

NAYs ---23
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
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)
Wyden (D-OR)

I stand corrected, thank you. 100 voted in the Senate and 23 opposed, this does not look like a Majority was against the war. Now that the only error I made was pointed out I feel much better.

Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. The resolution passed by Congress did not demand or force Bush to invade Iraq. This was Bush initiative and he got Congress to ALLOW him to invade Iraq. He could have done NOTHING. He made the choice AFTER Congress gave him the ability to choose!

I do not agree that we know if Congress had all the information about the danger Saddam posed. Bush “Cherry Picked” only the Intel that supported his position and ignored a mass of Intel that discounted the threat of Saddam. Bush also ignored the assessment by the Pentagon that said in 2002, Saddam could only conduct military operations in the Central Portion of Iraq. How could Saddam have been such a threat to the world’s most powerful nation if he could only conduct military operations in the central section of his own county? The pentagon assessment alone would have caused ANY REASONABLE person to ask, HOW IS SADDAM A THREAT? That was apart from the questions about any nuclear program that also existed in 2002.

I do not agree that we know if Congress had all the information about the danger Saddam posed.

I agree with you here. The full intelligence was made avaiable to the full Congress. I think it was three or seven Democrats signed in and read it. They chose not to see the information as a complete picture.

Bush also ignored the assessment by the Pentagon that said in 2002, Saddam could only conduct military operations in the Central Portion of Iraq. How could Saddam have been such a threat to the world’s most powerful nation if he could only conduct military operations in the central section of his own county?

Mr. Clinton said while he was president that Iraq was a threat to the United States. A host of Congressmen and women demanded we do something about the threat that Iraq posed to the United States. This is all public record as well as stated prior to the election of 2000. You seem to forget or ignore these facts because they were said years before Mr. Bush took office, but after the Gulf war. If Iraq was a threat to the United States before Mr. Bush took office how did Iraq become less of a threat after Mr. Bush took office and after the attacks of 9/11?

Bush made the decision to invade Iraq. The resolution passed by Congress did not demand or force Bush to invade Iraq. This was Bush initiative and he got Congress to ALLOW him to invade Iraq. He could have done NOTHING. He made the choice AFTER Congress gave him the ability to choose!

You try your best to avoid blaming anything on the democrats.  Is this because you hate Bush so much, or you just want to defend the democrats?

I do not agree that we know if Congress had all the information about the danger Saddam posed. Bush “Cherry Picked” only the Intel that supported his position and ignored a mass of Intel that discounted the threat of Saddam. Bush also ignored the assessment by the Pentagon that said in 2002, Saddam could only conduct military operations in the Central Portion of Iraq. How could Saddam have been such a threat to the world’s most powerful nation if he could only conduct military operations in the central section of his own county? The pentagon assessment alone would have caused ANY REASONABLE person to ask, HOW IS SADDAM A THREAT? That was apart from the questions about any nuclear program that also existed in 2002.

How were 19 people a threat to the U.S.? 

You keep cutting and pasting the same response that we have proved over and over that you are wrong.  Every major intelligence agency thought Saddam had WMD's, and was a threat.  The democrats you keep defending TOLD US SADDAM WAS A THREAT!.

Paladin 77

I am talking about a report provided by the Pentagon during the Bush 43 administration that said Saddam was ONLY capable of conducting military operations in the Central Portion of Iraq. How the HELL would Saddam with that limited military capability pose such a grave threat to the U.S. that REQUIRED our invasion?

IslandDog

I think any Democrat that gave Bush the OPTION to invade Iraq was wrong. However, that was just that an OPTION. Given the fact Saddam was no real threat to the U.S., WHY did BUSH choose to invade Iraq?

IslandDog

Several Intel agencies questioned the nuclear issue and in fact the majority of the Intel said that Saddam did not have a current Nuclear WMD program in 2002. There was also Intel that questioned the Bio WMD hazard. The ONLY undisputed WMD issue was that Saddam, had old gas filled Artillery Shells. That is the ONLY WMD that was found in Iraq. There was no independent confirmation of ANY of the WMD sites listed by the CIA. Every one of those sites had NOTHING. That is what the three former CIA section chiefs said as well as Generals Zinni and Tainer. They all said Bush Cherry Picked the Intel and ignored anything that did not support his contention there was WMD.

think any Democrat that gave Bush the OPTION to invade Iraq was wrong. However, that was just that an OPTION. Given the fact Saddam was no real threat to the U.S., WHY did BUSH choose to invade Iraq?

We have already gone over this col, and your obsession with Bush will not allow you to see anything diferent.

Several Intel agencies questioned the nuclear issue and in fact the majority of the Intel said that Saddam did not have a current Nuclear WMD program in 2002. There was also Intel that questioned the Bio WMD hazard. The ONLY undisputed WMD issue was that Saddam, had old gas filled Artillery Shells. That is the ONLY WMD that was found in Iraq. There was no independent confirmation of ANY of the WMD sites listed by the CIA. Every one of those sites had NOTHING. That is what the three former CIA section chiefs said as well as Generals Zinni and Tainer. They all said Bush Cherry Picked the Intel and ignored anything that did not support his contention there was WMD.

You are just cut and paste.  Theese CIA chiefs are ZinnI are book writers who offered no proof but their own opinions in order to sell a book.  I have already shown how incompetent Zinni was and he took responsibility for the Cole bombing.  The U.N.'s own account of Saddams WMD's do not match up, the questino is not whether Saddam had WMD's, it's what he did with them. 

Keep ignoring what everyone posts to you col.  It only shows that you are completely inable to comprehend anything but your own Bush hating fantasies.

Once again col you are losing the funding arguement so you go back to your usual Iraq arguement. 

I am talking about a report provided by the Pentagon during the Bush 43 administration that said Saddam was ONLY capable of conducting military operations in the Central Portion of Iraq.

Oh, well that is different because I was talking about reports and speeches made by Democrats during the Clinton administration. So it is now your contention that Mr. Clinton lied and Mr. Bush told the truth?

How the HELL would Saddam with that limited military capability pose such a grave threat to the U.S. that REQUIRED our invasion?

Fear! Fear that Saddam would as he suggested, give the WMD he had to AQ types that had a world wide network to distribute them. Yes, Iraq did not have the ability to hit anyone with rockets other than Israel. AQ did have the ability to attack America on American soil. It was at that point that Iraq became a serious threat to America. We did not have to invade Iraq had the leader of that nation kept to the agreement he made with the UN. His choce to thumb his nose at the UN and no bodies fault but his for his fate.

Several Intel agencies questioned the nuclear issue and in fact the majority of the Intel said that Saddam did not have a current Nuclear WMD program in 2002. There was also Intel that questioned the Bio WMD hazard. The ONLY undisputed WMD issue was that Saddam, had old gas filled Artillery Shells. That is the ONLY WMD that was found in Iraq. There was no independent confirmation of ANY of the WMD sites listed by the CIA. Every one of those sites had NOTHING. That is what the three former CIA section chiefs said as well as Generals Zinni and Tainer. They all said Bush Cherry Picked the Intel and ignored anything that did not support his contention there was WMD.

Gene, your understanding of intelligence is weak at best. It is not James Bond or like in books and movies. A case officer goes in country and learns two or three pieces of information and reports back. Others do the same thing. In most cases you have conflicting information and an analyst puts the pieces together as best he or she can and makes a report. This is why you can two conflicting reports that are both valid. Most Intel agencies will have two or eight reports made up covering all bases so when the crap hits the fan they can say that they had the right information but the higher-ups ignored it in favor of their own personal views. Sound like you have heard this one before? All a President can do is read them and make his best guess as to which one is correct. He has to live with the choices he made while others have to live or die because of them. I could present you with a potential war and solutions on how to avoid it and I am willing to bet money you would choose the wrong one, not because you are stupid but because you never get all the information you need until the mission is over and all the facts come out. You sit there with 20/20 hindsight seeing all the facts after the war is over and you say the President should have seen it as you do now. On D-day General Eisenhower wrote two speeches. The landing went badly and if the American people knew how badly they would have screamed for the impeachment of the President. The people in the news understood this and kept their mouths shut. Because of this and other things we won the war. We don’t have a press willing to help us win this time so we are forced to work even harder to beat the enemy.

IslandDog

You have not explained why since Saddam was NO THREAT BUSH INVADED IRAQ?

paladin77

The issue is NOT my understanding of Intelligence. It is the opinion of the most knowledgeable Intelligence operatives that Bush Cherry Picked the Intelligence. Not less then three CIA section chiefs including the Chief of Iraq has said that Bush ignored anything that did not support his decision to invade Iraq. Gen. Zinni was the security coordinator for the Pentagon just prior to our invasion and said the Intelligence he saw was not in agreement with what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress and the American People.

IslandDog You have not explained why since Saddam was NO THREAT BUSH INVADED IRAQ?

Actually Paladin77 answered that question. See reply #55

You have not explained why since Saddam was NO THREAT BUSH INVADED IRAQ?

Saddam was a threat...I have quotes from demcorats who said so!  Will you believe them?

Not less then three CIA section chiefs including the Chief of Iraq has said that Bush ignored anything that did not support his decision to invade Iraq. Gen. Zinni was the security coordinator for the Pentagon just prior to our invasion and said the Intelligence he saw was not in agreement with what Bush and Cheney were telling Congress and the American People.

And they offer no proof but their opinions because they were selling a book.  I have read other Generals and the like who say the exact opposite.  YOU ARE THE ONE who cherry picks things you try to pass as fact, but in reality, they are only a biased opinion.

Now once again you have successfully derailed the original topic which you were failing in.

a threat...I have quotes from demcorats who said so! Will you believe them?

Don't confuse the issue with facts, please!