It is a bit old, but interesting. The last statement rather pissed me off really though.

 

Democrat seeks probe of reasons for war

 

Associated Press

Published June 17, 2005

 

WASHINGTON -- A senior House Democrat urged Congress to launch an official inquiry to determine whether President Bush misled the nation about the reasons for toppling Saddam Hussein, as a small, bipartisan group of congressmen proposed Thursday to mandate that the U.S. begin drawing down its troops in Iraq by October next year.

 

The developments came as the bill for the war continued to grow, with the House debating a measure that would provide an additional $45 billion for military operations in Iraq as well as Afghanistan. That would come on top of the $350 billion for combat and reconstruction appropriated so far.

 

Rep. Charles Rangel of New York was among Democratic House members at a forum to air demands that the White House provide more information about what led to the decision to go to war in Iraq.

 

"Quite frankly, evidence that appears to be building up points to whether or not the president has deliberately misled Congress to make the most important decision a president has to make, going to war," said Rangel, senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee.

 

Rep. John Conyers of Michigan and other Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee organized the forum to investigate implications in a British document known as the Downing Street memo. The memo refers to meetings by British officials with senior administration officials and says the White House was determined to fix thin evidence about weapons of mass destruction to fit the predetermined policy of ousting Hussein.

 

Conyers noted statements by Bush in the run-up to invasion that war would be a last resort. "The veracity of those statements has, to put it mildly, come into question," he said.

 

Conyers delivered petitions signed by 105 members of Congress and about 540,000 signatures sent via e-mail to a security gate at the White House Thursday evening. The petitions urged Bush to thoroughly answer questions about the memo. The group MoveOn PAC helped Conyers collect the signatures.

 

War decision debated

 

In the opening hours of the forum, witnesses spoke mainly about their views on the decision to go to war and not the memo, which the Bush administration has dismissed.

 

"We are having this discussion today because we failed to have it three years ago when we went to war," former Ambassador Joseph Wilson said.

 

Wilson wrote a 2003 newspaper opinion piece criticizing the Bush administration's claim that Iraq had sought uranium in Niger. After the piece appeared, someone in the Bush administration leaked the identity of Wilson's wife as a CIA operative, exposing her cover.

 

Wilson has said he believes the leak was retaliation.

 

The Downing Street memo states the "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy," recounting a July 23, 2002, meeting of Prime Minister Tony Blair and his national security team. The meeting took place after British officials returned from Washington.

 

U.S. officials and Blair deny the assertion about intelligence and facts being "fixed," a comment that the memo attributes to the chief of British intelligence at the time.

 

Meanwhile, with polls showing public support for the war and the Bush administration falling, two Republican and two Democratic congressmen introduced a resolution that would require the president to announce by year's end a plan for withdrawing troops.

 

It is the first such resolution by lawmakers from both parties, although most Democrats and six House Republicans voted in 2002 against sending troops to Iraq.

 

While many Democrats and some Republicans repeatedly have voted against continued funding for the war, there has been no concerted joint effort before to bring troops home.

 

A low-water mark of 41 percent of adults said in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll this month that they supported Bush's handling of the war in Iraq. And a Gallup poll released Monday found that 6 in 10 Americans say they think the United States should withdraw some or all of its troops from Iraq.

 

Among the resolution's sponsors are Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.), who voted for the Iraq war but now says the United States has done what it can in Iraq and the reason for going to war--Hussein's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction--has been proved false.

 

"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion on this resolution," Jones said.

 

 

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...nationworld-hed

 

Only after this do they finally question and consider asking these questions? The democrats have the backbone of jello.

 

"After 1,700 deaths, over 12,000 wounded and $200 billion spent, we believe it is time to have this debate and discussion on this resolution," Jones said.

Only after this do they finally question and consider asking these questions? The democrats have the backbone of jello.

830765[/snapback]

When they are the minority party, especially with this administration and Congress in power, it's very difficult for the Democrats to do anything.

 

That's a pretty uncaring statement from that House Republican about the number of deaths.

good thing no one much looked into it before the 1700 deaths, 1200 wounded and 200 billion spent. :thumbup

That's a pretty uncaring statement from that House Republican about the number of deaths.

830793[/snapback]

I thought it was pretty nonchalant myself.

 

 

Better now than when it is too late.

The problem is the dems are always working in a low ground position when it comes to war issues. You really cant use common sense and rational thought with this issue when so many people think black and white, security of the nation or treason against the flag. Dems are not hawks by nature and so if they stand up for what they believe is right or wrong on a war issue, regardless of when during the war, they are painted as anti troop, anti US security, pro terrorists. Just look at what Rove said recently. He knows how people in this country think. Make it simple and spoon feed and you get what you want. Trying to reason with this country on war and show backbone as you say is just too difficult for dems. Its very similiar to standing up for gays on the gay marriage issue.

 

 

Here are the fact. Bush could call for an invasion of Europe because he doesn't like them frenchies, be stuck in war for 10 years, admit he did it all for fun, and then there would still be a sizeable chunk of people in this country, and on this board, who would say dems are against securing America because they dare say maybe Bush and the hawks arent right.

F_m is right but misses a key point. The problem is that the dems often cry wolf. If a political party is against most major military action, it is easy to ignore the legitimate claims among the illegitimate. When we invaded afghanistan, most dems agreed on the invasion, BUT the media made it seem that they didnt. And this is where the problem lies. It would almost require the dems to be in favor of a war once in a while, so that when they're against one it wont be dismissed by the general public as just being the dems up to their old ways.