Richard Steiner wrote:
It's one thing to tentatively go along with the initial invasion based
on the information available at the time (and also taking into account
the potential political backlash of not supporting the leader of the
country immediately after 9/11),

Sorry, but the information available before the invasion was totally
worthless. I saw on February 5th, intelligence experts tear apart those
famouns "evidence" pieces presented to the UN by Powell. Now, had the
Democrats watched TV outside the USA, they would have seen those and would
have realised how the USA was embarking on such a false pretense for an invasion.

And all of the USA's shenenigans against the UN, not allowing the UN to
complete its work and going as far as actively discrediting Blix should have
been way enough ammunition for the Democrats to oppose the bush regime.

It would not have been hard for then to point to all the lies, lack of
evidence and the fact that Iraq was no threath to the USA, and most certaintly
not such an immediate threath requiring UN inspectors to widthdraw.

I am sorry, but there was NO EXCUSE for the democrats to support this. Had
there been sufficient opposition to the Bush regime, then those "right wing"
americans wouldn't have been able to label the "few" who opposed it as "unpatriotic".

I read that infamous "dossier" that had been made available on the British
govt's web site. Even I could see a total lack of real evidence in that
dossier which was made up of very old information of what they had found
before the UN destroyed or witnessed/verified destruction of the banned
weaponse during the 1990s. Then they go and pretend they are potentially all
still there ready to be fired within 45 minutes, with absoutely no evidence
that Iraq had actually rebuilt its factories etc.

Sorry, but again, I can't understand how anyone would have believed that this
constituted sufficient evidence that an urgent invasion was required.

The Bush regime may have dismissed its allies opposition to the invasion. But
why didn't the democrast meet with DeVillepin and others who opposed the USA
invasion to hear their side of the story and the french/german/russian
evidence that the USA evidence was faulty ?

No, the democrats didn't want to be labeled unpatriotic and made damned sure
nonbody saw the other side of the coin. Kerry is in a way a liability to the
democrats because he support the war crimes commited by the USA. And lets not
get into Gantanamo bay concentration camp. Where are the democrats in this ?
The whole world outside the USA calls this totally against human rights, and
even the supreme court of the USA has agreed that it has a right to rule on
the constitutionality of this concentration camp. Yet, where are the calls for
impeachement because your current government has broken the constitution's
obligation for due legal process ?