There is no excuse for not questioning when it should have been done. But personally, I think a lot of that can be traced to politics. The administration framed this war as a patriotic thing. So any questioning was done by those who were not afraid of the outcome of speaking up. They didn't need to protect themselves politically.

Unfortunately, the political environment didn't allow for our politicians to be against the war until there was a sufficient groundswell that you could ask "why?" and not be personally attacked.



>Have you forgotten all of the Senators (Dems included) that voted for military action in Iraq? There were not 'many' arguing against it but only a few argued publicly. It was seen as a dangerous politcal move at that time to not support it. Now of course with hindsight many are saying they were wrong, but they cannot deny that they supported it originally. This 'vote yes before no' or whichever is too much of a duck and cover to me. Regardless of who came up with the idea originally it would never have materialized without the full support of the senate which it received. The House and the Senate publicly supported it at the time - everyone seems to forget that now. Today we have everyone trying to backpedal. It is fine to ask for an account on how/why everyone voted the way they did (intelligence information, briefings, etc) but everyone should acknowledge how they voted and why. It is on the record.
>
>http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
>http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/11/iraq.us/
>
>Also, the house approved it by 296-133 earlier.
>
>Surprisingly, it passed by a wider margin than when his father was given the power to go to war in 1991.
>
>
>
>>The war was at the behest of the neocons. There were many who argued in the beginning that the neocon logic was flawed. I don't know if it was a neocon or just Rumsfeld philosophy, but the goal of fighting a war there with a small amount of troops was a major, major flaw from the get go.
>>
>>I was against the war from the beginning because I believed the arguments against. And the disenters have been proven true.
>>
>>At minimum, the attacks against US forces is getting stronger and stronger. Al Queda is able to test new tactics against our troops that they can use anywhere in the world.
>>
>>I also didn't like Bush wanting to go unilaterally. It is a symptom of a much larger problem with the policies of the current administration. Many countries in the world are not happy with our governments policies and are willing to deal with others because of it.
>>
>>The US is loosing a hold on the "most dominant" nation as other's get in line to assume the position.
>>
>>>>If you're being serious (which I suppose you are), why do you support a war started by an adminstration that has done all it can to cater to these lunatics?
>>>
>>>I support the war because I believe it was the right thing to do. It sounds like you believe the war was started at the behest of the fundamentalists.