Ted Koppel's Findings

[juanez]

Wow. This is pretty interesting.

Top Dems Still Would Have Voted for War (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/7/12/210535.shtml)

"[Ted] Koppel’s findings, which aired on ABC Radio late Friday night, directly counter Rockefeller’s suggestion that the Senate would not have strongly endorsed the war against Iraq.

Koppel reported: "We wanted to see whether the conclusions reached by the Intelligence Committee would have made any difference to the other senators who voted to authorize the war in Iraq, so we called them.

"Of the 42 we reached, only three said they would have changed their minds had they known then 'what they know now.'

"Among those who say they would not have changed their minds, a number of prominent Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chuck Schumer and Tom Daschle ."

Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way."

[GWB]

No surprise to me, Democrats just say whatever will help get more Democrats elected. Anything they utter in an election year must be taken with a grain of salt.

Deep down these Democrats know my war effort is well worth it, but they can not say that and remain politically viable in the Democratic Party. Look what happened to Zell Miller.

[Chris Alger]

"my war effort is well worth it"

How? Well worth what?

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
"my war effort is well worth it"

How? Well worth what?

[/ QUOTE ]

The war against terror is well worth the effort, including Iraqi theatre. The point of this thread is that one or two unreliable intelligence reports does not change the fundamental underlying issues, and even the Democrats realize this - and continue to support the war even with the hindsight of all the intelligence investigations.

[Chris Alger]

The antiwar left has been saying all along that the public reasons for the war are fraudulent and have little to do with the actual but less saleable realpolitik reasons favored and often acknowledged by elites, which makes them determinative. This group includes the centrist (by American standards) leadership of both parties. The collapse of every public justification for the war therefore hasn't changed the minds of those that matter. That's why the mainstream media trumpted the most preposterous reasons for the war without scrutiny, why most Democratic leaders fell all over themselves warning of Iraq's non-existent "threat," why the centrist Democratic "solution" is to invovle NATO to lend an appearance of "internationality," why Kerry wants to send more troops and won't set a date on pulling them out, and why most Democratic Senators will insist that "failure" in Iraq is not an option despite it's being a foregone conclusion given the public premises. Despite the polls showing that a majority of Americans believe the war shouldn't have been waged in the first place, it's the reason we're still there and will be for decades unless we're kicked out by force or if the cost exceeds the material benefits (again, by elite reckoning) by some huge degree.

Or do you think the White House lies designed to terrify ordinary folks between ball games and trips to the mall also hoodwinked (without repurcussion) America's business and political elite, or that this same elite would willingly fork over $500 billion to "liberate" a tribal desert country, one that just happens to be sitting on some of the most politically and economically valuable real estate in the world (at least, if controlled by the right operative), because it's "the right thing to do," without expecting any material benefit in return? Other than people who knod open-mouthed at O'Reilly (e.g. the bottom 2/3's of Republicans), who could be credulous enough to believe it?

[Chris Alger]

Let's set aside your stupid equation of tens of thousands of misleading statements foisted on the American public by its political, military and business rulers as "one or two unreliable intelligence reports."

What "war on terror" in the "Iraqi theatre"? These are just buzzwords to make the war sound defensible.

[adios]

A year from now the U.S. will have half as many troops in Iraq and in two years a drastically reduced presence. The U.S. won't share in any of the Iraqi oil profits. U.S. companies will provide at least some oil services there. Flame away.

I find it amazing that so many that hate Bush for his Iraqi policies are such strong supporters of Kerry who essentially has the annunciated the same policy in Iraq as Bush. At least you're not voting for either one.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Despite the media buzz last week that suggested the U.S. Congress may have been hoodwinked by the Bush administration and a politicized CIA into voting for the Iraq war, many leading Democrats apparently do not see it that way.

[/ QUOTE ]

John Kerry as the anti-war candidate? I don't think so unless he's lying now which is certainly possible.