What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- deznice, on 10/12/2007, -18/+9how many senators who voted against it, would now vote for it?
no digg on this leftist propaganda- yakimushi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Lets see... if they were smart enough to vote against it then I don't think they've become retarded in time since.
I'm mean, really, you'd have to be pretty damn stupid to vote for the Iraq war knowing what we do now. - mtwolf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They are politicians, they do and say what is popular so they can keep their job, not always what is right.
There were so many other reasons to remove Saddam, not sure why WMD's were emphasized so heavily. Either way it was, and still is, the right thing to do.
God bless our troops.
- yakimushi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15Lets see... if they were smart enough to vote against it then I don't think they've become retarded in time since.
- RuffRidr, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Well no *****. I would think most would vote different if they knew how it would turn out.
- Fascist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Only 33?
- megaman2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0yup....you read right. Only 33. There is still a strong majority that still believes they were right.
- Demiror, on 10/12/2007, -0/+023+33=56
The Senate has 100 members.
How is 44 a "strong majority" in the Senate?
- killinger777, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Key phrase: "knowing then what they know now."
- AdmiralAdama, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8a lil late.
- JesusIsSatan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4If the reason to invade Iraq was that Iraq presented a clear and present danger to the U.S. with WMDs, and there were no WMDs, I want to know why only less than half admit it was a mistake, even in hindsight. Because to do so would be admitting they killed 3,000+ soldiers and 600,000 Iraqi civilians and wasted $400 billion taxpayer dollars not including the reputation of the U.S. for nothing.
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7Actually, the whole thing was looking sort of brilliant before the war. Bush got permission to go to war, IF NECESSARY, from congress. Saddam was scared. He let the inspectors back in, which Clinton was unable to accomplish. Then that idiot Bush started the war anyway, despite the fact that no WMDs were being found by the inspectors. And they were not being denied access anywhere. Bush's agenda against Iraq was clearly something other than WMDs.
- RyanDaRin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Even if they really dont believe that they were wrong, they would still say it for the vote. A politician is a politician.
- quaunaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Hindsight's 20/20.
- thetechaddict, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Knowing what they know now, it should be 100% against the war. Why in the world would anyone still vote to go into iraq knowing how it would turn out? Apparently, we need to do a better job electing our senators.
- forgottenred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2When are we going to stop blaming people and realize we can't do anything to change the past? Why don't we spend our time and resources trying to figure out how to fix the situation in Iraq instead.
- barius, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Vote out Bush, that will fix alot.
- forgottenred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2you realize Bush can't be voted out by the public right? And you realize that Democrats are the ones pointing the fingers rather than trying to come up with a solution? (And for you diggers, I do not at all endorse Bush, I just live in reality.)
- megaman2005, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I think there was one senator that voted for it before he voted against it.
- mtwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1; )
- MadN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0It is for this reason we need to know how the decision to invade was made.
Where was the intelligence from, who discovered or invented it.
We now know:
Iraq was a country where terrorists were shot down in the streets, under Sadam.
If a terrorist training camp was in a village, the village was wiped out.
George H. Bush sold gas weapons to Sadam, while selling the same weapons to Iran.- Ganchula, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Bush's decision to invade had nothing to do with intelligence. He had decided to invade Iraq well before he took office.
I wish I knew what the real reason to invade was. Economics of oil? I'm not sure. Wouldn't it be interesting to get a straight answer from Bush & Co about the real reason? But that will never happen. Perhaps the Woodward book will explain.
- Ganchula, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Bush's decision to invade had nothing to do with intelligence. He had decided to invade Iraq well before he took office.
- Ganchula, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@ forgottenred:
Two things about that:
We shouldn't forget what we did wrong, painstaking self-examination of the government is entirely appropriate for the Iraq war, which has been very expensive in terms of human life and capital expenditure. Maybe next time we won't let our government fool us so easily and go to war like a bunch of macho cowboys. (Remember "Shock and Awe"?)
And, understanding what we did wrong may help us find out how to fix things.- forgottenred, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1but this isn't really trying to figure out what went wrong, it's pointing fingers.
- mtwolf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1cue the blame America first liberal apologists.....
Am I too late?
- Frodo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This comment to the article bears repeeating:
"There is a perfect way for these Senators to make amends: voting in favor of impeaching Bush."
Good luck! - buschwacker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Hindsight is 20/20...
- cerpntaxt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0oh... good...
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009 — Content posted by Digg users is