Is prescience a condition you really want to require? No one was at that time in a position to question the particular evidence Powell presented, which while false was corroborated by unquestionable historical evidence of the Iraqi regime’s weapons programs pre-dating the first Gulf War and some evidence that those programs weren’t concluded until the mid to late 90’s, well after the first Gulf War. Only after the war had begun did it come to light in such a way that anyone could, even if they weren’t, be held to account on the WMD claims. Even then, these were characterized as “corrections” when admissions of bad intelligence were made and “errors” not wrongdoing.
Did you have an example of anyone else standing up and saying Powell was lying/mis-leading/himself hoodwinked -before- the war? I do, but not a sitting Senator who has the option of opposing the war with a valid , supported rationale instead of calling the President a liar without strong evidence to back it up.
Bernie did cite the consensus of US intelligence agencies that WMD’s were not an imminent threat. That consensus ran completely counter to the justification for war provided by the White House and it’s tainted, manufactured evidence. He also noted we could not then afford more foreign wars. This too was correct.
Both assertions were rationale, valid, considered, diplomatic, and yet allowed him to wholly oppose an unjust war at a time when as @Wanderfound says, most Democrats were cowed by the patriotic bloodlust following 9/11, in thrall of that feeling themselves, or already corrupted into supporting any action that benefitted the forces behind all military spending in the US.
But hey, since you don’t know, and can’t be bothered to learn it on your own, you start from the presumption that he’s ignorant or something. As you have before on other issues.
How’s that working out for you?
