Does Imperial Washington even care that Americans never wanted the Iraq war?

You would think, in a country that routinely lectures others about democracy, that the government would at least notice when 70% of the country opposes its policy.





But the lies go on, and the war goes on, in blissful ignorance of the wishes of the American people.

Does Imperial Washington even care that Americans never wanted the Iraq war?
This government is "of the government, for the government, by the government"





Power to the government.





There!


Satisfied...?
Reply:Americans never wanted the war? How much more wrong could you be?





"As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."





Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)


Statement on US Led Military Strike Against Iraq


December 16, 1998





"Saddam Hussein certainly has chemical and biological weapons. There's no question about that."





Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)


During an interview on "Meet The Press"


November 17, 2002





"I come to this debate, Mr. Speaker, as one at the end of 10 years in office on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, where stopping the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was one of my top priorities. I applaud the President on focusing on this issue and on taking the lead to disarm Saddam Hussein. ... Others have talked about this threat that is posed by Saddam Hussein. Yes, he has chemical weapons, he has biological weapons, he is trying to get nuclear weapons."





Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi (Democrat, California)


Addressing the US Senate


October 10, 2002





"Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price."





Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)


September 13, 2001





"In the next century, the community of nations may see more and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now -- a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.





If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program."





President Clinton


Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff





"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our allies.





If Saddam persists in thumbing his nose at the inspectors, then we're clearly going to have to do something about it."





Howard Dean, Democratic Presidential Candidate


During an interview on "Face The Nation"


September 29, 2002





"People can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons."





Former President Clinton


During an interview on CNN's "Larry King Live"


July 22, 2003





"We stopped the fighting [in 1991] on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict."





Senator Harry Reid (Democrat, Nevada)


Addressing the US Senate


October 9, 2002





"The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.


The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people."





President Clinton


Oval Office Address to the American People


December 16, 1998








"It appears that with the deadline for exile come and gone, Saddam Hussein has chosen to make military force the ultimate weapons inspections enforcement mechanism. If so, the only exit strategy is victory, this is our common mission and the world's cause."





Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)


Statement on commencement of military strikes against Iraq


March 20, 2003


Senator John Edwards, when asked about "Axis of Evil" countries Iran, Iraq, and North Korea:





"I mean, we have three different countries that, while they all present serious problems for the United States -- they're dictatorships, they're involved in the development and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction -- you know, the most imminent, clear and present threat to our country is not the same from those three countries. I think Iraq is the most serious and imminent threat to our country."





Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)


During an interview on CNN's "Late Edition"


February 24, 2002


"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be President, or the credibility to be elected President.





No one can doubt or should doubt that we are safer -- and Iraq is better -- because Saddam Hussein is now behind bars."





Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)


Speech at Drake University in Iowa


December 16, 2003


John Edwards, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:


"Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can."





Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)


US Senate floor statement: "Authorization of the Use of


United States Armed Forces Against Iraq"


October 10, 2002


"I think it was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And when the president made the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact that we did disarm him."





Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)


During a Democratic Primary Debate at the University of South Carolina


May 3, 2003


"There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed." Senator Edward Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) Speech at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies September 27, 2002


"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members...





It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."





Senator Hillary Clinton (Democrat, New York)


Addressing the US Senate


October 10, 2002


John Kerry, while voting YES to the Resolution authorizing US military force against Iraq:





"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force - if necessary - to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."





Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)


Addressing the US Senate


October 9, 2002


"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It's about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability -- a capability that could be less than a year away.





The path of confronting Saddam is full of hazards. But the path of inaction is far more dangerous. This week, a week where we remember the sacrifice of thousands of innocent Americans made on 9-11, the choice could not be starker. Had we known that such attacks were imminent, we surely would have used every means at our disposal to prevent them and take out the plotters. We cannot wait for such a terrible event -- or, if weapons of mass destruction are used, one far worse -- to address the clear and present danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq."





Senator John Edwards (Democrat, North Carolina)


US Senate floor statement: "Iraqi Dictator Must Go"


September 12, 2002


"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime. We all know the litany of his offenses. He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. He miscalculated an eight-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's response to that act of naked aggression. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending scuds into Israel and trying to assassinate an American President. He miscalculated his own military strength. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his misconduct. And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction. That is why the world, through the United Nations Security Council, has spoken with one voice, demanding that Iraq disclose its weapons programs and disarm.





So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new. It has been with us since the end of the Persian Gulf War.





In U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441, the United Nations has now affirmed that Saddam Hussein must disarm or face the most serious consequences. Let me make it clear that the burden is resoundingly on Saddam Hussein to live up to the ceasefire agreement he signed and make clear to the world how he disposed of weapons he previously admitted to possessing."





Senator John Kerry (Democrat, Massachusetts)


Speech at Georgetown University


January 23, 2003


Congressman Gephardt links Saddam with the threat of terrorists nuking US cities:


BOB SCHIEFFER, Chief Washington Correspondent:





And with us now is the Democratic presidential candidate Dick Gephardt. Congressman, you supported taking military action in Iraq. Do you think now it was the right thing to do?





REP. RICHARD GEPHARDT, D-MO, Democratic Presidential Candidate:





I do. I base my determination on what I heard from the CIA. I went out there a couple of times and talked to everybody, including George Tenet. I talked to people in the Clinton administration.





SCHIEFFER:





Well, let me just ask you, do you feel, Congressman, that you were misled?





GEPHARDT:





I don't. I asked very direct questions of the top people in the CIA and people who'd served in the Clinton administration. And they said they believed that Saddam Hussein either had weapons or had the components of weapons or the ability to quickly make weapons of mass destruction. What we're worried about is an A-bomb in a Ryder truck in New York, in Washington and St. Louis. It cannot happen. We have to prevent it from happening. And it was on that basis that I voted to do this.





Congressman Richard Gephardt (Democrat, Montana)


Interviewed on CBS News "Face the Nation"


November 2, 2003


"We have not reached parity with them. We have the right to kill 4 million Americans -- 2 million of them children -- and to exile twice as many and wound and cripple hundreds of thousands. Furthermore, it is our right to fight them with chemical and biological weapons, so as to afflict them with the fatal maladies that have afflicted the Muslims because of the [Americans'] chemical and biological weapons."





Islamic terrorist group "Al Qaeda"


June 12, 2002


"[W]e have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.





Having reached the conclusion I have about the clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to act against Saddam."





Senator Joseph Lieberman (Democrat, Connecticut)


In a Wall Street Journal editorial Lieberman authored titled: "Why Democrats Should Support the President on Iraq"


October 7, 2002








"No one has done what Saddam Hussein has done, or is thinking of doing. He is producing weapons of mass destruction, and he is qualitatively and quantitatively different from other dictators."





Madeleine Albright, President Clinton's Secretary of State


Town Hall Meeting on Iraq at Ohio State University


February 18, 1998


"Ten years after the Gulf War and Saddam is still there and still continues to stockpile weapons of mass destruction. Now there are suggestions he is working with al Qaeda, which means the very terrorists who attacked the United States last September may now have access to chemical and biological weapons."





James P. Rubin, President Clinton's State Department spokesman


In a PBS documentary titled "Saddam's Ultimate Solution"


July 11, 2002


"Dear Mr. President: ... We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraq sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."





Sincerely,





Carl Levin, Joe Lieberman, Frank R. Lautenberg, Dick Lugar, Kit Bond, Jon Kyl, Chris Dodd, John McCain, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Alfonse D'Amato, Bob Kerrey, Pete V. Domenici, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Mikulski, Thomas Daschle, John Breaux, Tim Johnson, Daniel K. Inouye, Arlen Specter, James Inhofe, Strom Thurmond, Mary L. Landrieu, Wendell Ford, John Kerry, Chuck Grassley, Jesse Helms, Rick Santorum.





Letter to President Clinton


Signed by Senators Tom Daschle, John Kerry and others


October 9, 1998


"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.





We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."





Al Gore, Former Clinton Vice-President


Speech to San Francisco Commonwealth Club


September 23, 2002





"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retained some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons, but has not yet achieved nuclear capability."





Robert C. Byrd


Former Ku Klux Klan recruiter, currently a US Senator (Democrat, West Virginia)


Addressing the US Senate


October 3, 2002


"His regime threatens the safety of his people, the stability of his region, and the security of all the rest of us.





What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the solemn commitments that he made?





Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.





And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal."





President Clinton


Address to Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon staff


February 17, 1998


Regime change in Iraq has been official US policy since 1998:





The Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 (sponsored by Bob Kerrey, John McCain, and Joseph Lieberman, and signed into law by President Clinton) states:





"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime."





Iraq Liberation Act of 1998


105th Congress, 2nd Session


September 29, 1998


"The global community -- in the form of the United Nations -- has declared repeatedly, through multiple resolutions, that the frightening prospect of a nuclear-armed Saddam cannot come to pass. But the U.N. has been unable to enforce those resolutions. We must eliminate that threat now, before it is too late.





But this isn't just a future threat. Saddam's existing biological and chemical weapons capabilities pose a very real threat to America, now. Saddam has used chemical weapons before, both against Iraq's enemies and against his own people. He is working to develop delivery systems like missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles that could bring these deadly weapons against U.S. forces and U.S. facilities in the Middle East.





As the attacks of September 11 demonstrated, the immense destructiveness of modern technology means we can no longer afford to wait around for a smoking gun. September 11 demonstrated that the fact that an attack on our homeland has not yet occurred cannot give us any false sense of security that one will not occur in the future. We no longer have that luxury.





September 11 changed America. It made us realize we must deal differently with the very real threat of terrorism, whether it comes from shadowy groups operating in the mountains of Afghanistan or in 70 other countries around the world, including our own.





There has been some debate over how "imminent" a threat Iraq poses. I do believe that Iraq poses an imminent threat, but I also believe that after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. It is in the nature of these weapons, and the way they are targeted against civilian populations, that documented capability and demonstrated intent may be the only warning we get. To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? We cannot!





The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction a grave and gathering threat to Americans. The global community has tried but failed to address that threat over the past decade. I have come to the inescapable conclusion that the threat posed to America by Saddam's weapons of mass destruction is so serious that despite the risks -- and we should not minimize the risks -- we must authorize the President to take the necessary steps to deal with that threat."





Senator John D. Rockefeller (Democrat, West Virginia)


Also a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee


Addressing the US Senate


October 10, 2002


"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do. He lies and cheats; he snubs the mandate and authority of international weapons inspectors; and he games the system to keep buying time against enforcement of the just and legitimate demands of the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States and our allies. Those are simply the facts."
Reply:In its present state, the US government had become a virtual dictatorship. Just a month ago, I've seen on TV when GW Bush and then later, presidential spokesman Tony Snow issued statements that said "Public opinion doesn't matter to us. We will continue to pursue our mission in Iraq, no matter how unpopular this war may become".





Take that from a president who embarked on invading another soverign nation, on the supposed notion of spreading democracy in the Middle East.





Now, that same president is refusing to listen to the vast majority of the American people's voices. He even subverted the US constitution and enacted laws that curtailed civil rights and liberties. Were all of these his ideals of a democracy?. When the sentiments of the few prevails over the sentiments of the majority, can you call that a democracy?. That is not democracy, but a blatant mockery of democracy.
Reply:I know that was quite a few Hookah Hits ago ,but the war had


popular support and very few opposed it .
Reply:Hey, it's funny how democrats suddenly 'politicized' this war when in fact, it's Bush's 'politicized' war. He and his closed door politicians insisted on it, went to great lengths to get the congressional/UN by force, ok on it,even lied about aspects of the reasoning for it, but didn't scope out an exit plan or figure on the backlash of disgruntled and dissappoined Americans with the actualities of it. In other words, the President didn't have the first clue about going to, engaging in and finishing a war of any kind. Now it's going to be up to another president to figure out a way to get America out of this mess and hopefully not have to pay damages to Iraqies everywhere.





example





""WASHINGTON (CNN) -- If he knew then what he knows now, he might have made some different decisions before the start of the Iraq war in 2003, the outgoing chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff told reporters Friday.








Outgoing Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Peter Pace says he now thinks more troops were needed at the war's start.





"One of the mistakes I made in my assumptions going in was that the Iraqi people and the Iraqi Army would welcome liberation, that the Iraqi Army, given the opportunity, would stand together for the Iraqi people and be available to them to help serve the new nation," Gen. Peter Pace said.





But "they disintegrated in the face of the coalition's first several weeks of combat, so they weren't here," Pace said.





Had he known that would happen, he would have recommended more troops be sent at the outset of the Iraq war, he said.""








But, they DID know, they just won't admit that it were liberals and conservatives had TOLD them this was necessary and the it was a fools errand in the first place, years BEFORE they rode down all cocky on Iraq. Excusifying is all it is. Plain and Simple.Don't believe me, ask GHW Bush.
Reply:this is too big for you. the problem is they know things you dont and you think you know it all! Americans didnt want war in 1914 or 1941 either, but the presidents knew better. just support the troops and shut up!
Reply:Well 70% of Americans supported the war when we went in.





I still support it. What is strange is that only 14% of our military consider itself to be Democrats.





So why should the military even care what Democrats think? They don't serve. All they do is call our troops too lazy and stupid to do well in school so they got 'stuck in Iraq', they don't support General Petraeus, the don't support the mission, they don't support the Commander in Chief, they rush to guilty judgements on any soldier accused of a crime in Iraq (Haditha, anyone?), accuse our soldiers of terrorizing Iraqi's, and spout the enemy's propaganda - yet they somehow still claim to support the troops.





It seems like the Dems are the ones who are lying when they say they support the troops (or America).
Reply:From the historical accounts I have read, middle America did not want WWII, either. Middle America is busy pursuing whatever their version is of the American dream.





That's why we vote for representatives and a President. So they make the tough decisions. And that's why they get the big bucks.





I didn't want to go. But when our nation, Democrats included, voted to go, I supported our nation's right to do it. I still do.





But while middle America is screaming about wanting the war to end, Democrats are capitalizing on the sentiment and doing nothing real. And it's tearing the nation apart at the seams.





ADDED: The greatest injustice of modern public education is that our children have been told the US is a Democracy. This is fallacious. We are and have been, since day one, a Constitutional Republic (a Democratic-Republic if you prefer that term). Our nation is governed by our 3 branches. We the people get a vote and a voice and we have been using our voice to spew trash.
Reply:Another ignorant liberal who makes stuff up as he goes along.


Just because you libs keep repeating your left-wing socialist mantra doesn't make it true.
Reply:obviously not, as many Congressmen have admitted to not even reading any earmarks on bills before voting for them.





If they can't even do that part of their job right, why would they have chosen to vote against invading Iraq?





Do Congressmen even read the letters and emails of the American people, saying what they stand for? I would say in most cases, they don't.





They're too busy wanting their own earmarks, about issues that somehow concern themselves, to pass through.
Reply:Freaky: You are wrong again. None of what you say is true. How do you justify making such libelous statements on this site? Are you anti-American? If so, why not just say it?
Reply:I wanted the war in iraq .
Reply:um...perhaps you may not remember that far back, but their was incredible support for this war. That is why a there was a landslide vote in favor of giving President Bush the power to do what he needed to do. Don't be as dumb as your politicians think you are.
Reply:That's funny, as I recall the vast majority, like 80 percent were all in favor of the war, both dems and republicans. Get your facts straight.
Reply:the ppl n so call "Imperial Washington " rnt allowed 2 vote, cuz its said tht if they vote they will have more power.
Reply:"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."
Reply:the lies are coming from the terrorists and the democrats...i cannot see the difference between them anymore.
Reply:That number is a very biased number. The questions on surveys only allow a choice of four answers at the most,


Very satisfied


satisfied


unsatisfied


very unsatisfied





Even with the bias those numbers did not appear until a year and a half ago. At the time we entered the war the American people were at 90% approval.