Remember the war skeptics? Before the war, they were ridiculed by windbag neoconservatives like Bill Kristol. Bush and his supporters wanted us to believe that the war skeptics were merely a bunch of unpatriotic flower children.

Of course we now know the skeptics were right. Who were they? Paul Krugman names a few:

Al Gore said this in September 2002:

“I am deeply concerned that the course of action that we are presently embarking upon with respect to Iraq has the potential to seriously damage our ability to win the war against terrorism and to weaken our ability to lead the world in this new century.”

Barack Obama in September 2002:

“What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in this administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.”

Nancy Pelosi in October 2002:

“When we go in, the occupation, which is now being called the liberation, could be interminable and the amount of money it costs could be unlimited.”

Russ Feingold in October 2002:

“I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. … When the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, I think it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency.”

Howard Dean in February 2003:

“I firmly believe that the president is focusing our diplomats, our military, our intelligence agencies, and even our people on the wrong war, at the wrong time. … Iraq is a divided country, with Sunni, Shia and Kurdish factions that share both bitter rivalries and access to large quantities of arms.”