I don’t know what it is with some people that when they discuss certain subjects, their normal, calm demeanor flies out the window and they take on a new personna. Before this thread gets hopelessly queered with catcalls directed at me, I will point out that I am the LAST person on earth to claim a ‘normal, calm demeanor,’ so charges of hypocrisy on my part are unwarranted and will go largely unnoticed.
At any rate, the reason I write this is because of this thoroughly disingenuous post by Kevin Drum:
THE LAST REFUGE….Glenn Reynolds on Democrats who claim that George Bush misled us into war:
And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they’re acting unpatriotically.
Glad we got that out in open.
Of course, the intent is to portray Glenn as stating that anyone who believes that we were misled into war is unpatriotic, and if you were to just look at that statement, it would be a fair interpretation. But in order to get to that little quote, you have to, as Kevin has chosen, selectively and intentionally ignore the rest of Glenn’s comment (conveniently missing the entire point of the statement):
BUSH SLAMS HISTORICAL REVISIONISTS ON THE WAR: About time. Jeff Goldstein has more.
And read earlier posts on this subject here and here. Also here.
The White House needs to go on the offensive here in a big way — and Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base, that it’s deeply dishonest, and that it hurts our troops abroad.
And yes, he should question their patriotism. Because they’re acting unpatriotically.
There is, as you can see, a big difference.
Painting as unpatriotic those individuals who change their opinions simply for political reasons is wholly appropriate, and that is what Glenn stated. Reynolds is not, as Kevin Drum would have you believe, simply calling anyone against the war or anyone who believes that the the reasons used to go to war were inaccurate ‘unpatriotic.’
As Jeff Goldstein notes:
The first victory for the anti-war left itook place shortly after 911, when war supporters on the right agreed, however reluctantly, that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” and that we should not question anyone’s patriotism (though the left was of course allowed to question the patriotism of “chickenhawks”; which is only fair, because we’re all just a bunch of cowardly jingoistic scumtonguers, anyhow).
But Glenn touches on an important distinction that we should now be willing to embrace: namely, that though the anti-war position is not inherently unpatriotic, those in the anti-war movement who use lies and misinformation to harm the country are—and political opportunism that relies on revisionist history and the leveling of false charges in order to regain power is indicative of mindset that profoundly cynical and profoundly anti-democratic.
I will loudly point out when I think people are simply smearing those on the left, as I did during the whole Durbin nonsense and during Rove’s attempted summertime smear against all liberals, but this has got to be a two way street if we are ever going to have the type of internal domestic rapprochement that this country desperately needs.
As, it is, though, Kevin appears to run in a crowd that is fond of calling the opposition liars at every opportunity, and it would be a refreshing and welcome change if Kevin himself would practice what he preaches and stop willfully distorting those he disagrees with. If, as Kevin alludes, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, a comple unwillingness to debate honestly and fairly has to be somewhere near the first.
Note to potential commenters- If all you are going to do is launch a vicious or pointed attack at Glenn, Jeff, Kevin, or me, don’t bother. I will just delete it and end comments on this post.
*** Update ***
Glenn elaborates:
WELL, THE HATEMAIL HAS POURED IN after my earlier post on Bush’s speech. For the record, though, I didn’t say that anyone who opposes the war is unpatriotic. (In fact, only antiwar people seem to keep raising this strawman). But the Democratic politicans who are pushing the “Bush Lied” meme are, I think, playing politics with the war in a way that is, in fact, unpatriotic. Having voted for the war, they now want to cozy up to the increasingly powerful MoveOn crowd, which is immensely antiwar. The “Bush Lied” meme is their way of getting cover. This move also suggests that their earlier support for the war may itself have been more opportunistic than sincere, which I suppose is another variety of unpatriotism.
Which is exactly what I thought he meant.
p.lukasiak
There is, as you can see, a big difference.
I get it. The difference is that its okay to say that those who say that Bush misled us into war are unpatriotic ONLY if you accuse them of pandering to “the anti-war base.”
If you don’t make both ugly, partisan, hate-filled accusations, you can’t make the first one!
Thanks for clearing that up for us, Cole.
Jeff Miller
I’d agree with you, John, if you could point to an example where Glenn has ever said, “X believed the information was incorrect, but I still believe he’s a patriot.”
Pretty much across the board, Glenn has consitently accused anti-war folks of being on “the other side.”
To me, even in the full context, this post reads as more of the same. Glenn’s a smart guy, and I read his site daily. But on this point, I think he’s being emotional, not rational. Anti-war = anti-America for Glenn, so far as I can tell.
Horshu
“The first victory for the anti-war left itook place shortly after 911, when war supporters on the right agreed, however reluctantly, that ‘dissent is the highest form of patriotism,’ and that we should not question anyone’s patriotism ”
I don’t seem to recall that being the case. I tend to watch a LOT of punditry just to take it all in, which may taint my view of the environment at the time, but those times were rife with anti-war activists having their patriotism called into question. Maybe someone else can discuss his/her own perspective on the acceptance of dissention/patriotism, but that statement isn’t accurate as far as I can remember.
J. Michael Neal
I hope that this isn’t construed as a pointed or vicious attack, but I think that it’s your response that ignores context. Glenn Reynolds has been casual enough about his attacks that it is very easy to come to the conclusion that his targets are broader than what is specifically listed in this post.
Further, his other posts all seem to imply that we went to war on Jan 1, 2003. Saying what people believed in 2002, before the inspectors got back into Iraq, and using that to frame their opinion on a war that strated in March, after the inspectors had been there for three months and found nothing, is dishonest.
Before attacking their patriotism, why doesn’t Glenn figure out what their position was by March 23, 2003?
John S.
Gee, I wonder why it has come down to this…
Mike S
Honest question, John. Glenn claims that they are “pandering to the anti war base” with no proof that they are. Is that any better than the people who claim that Bush lied, as opposed to misled, without any proof to back it up?
p.lukasiak
Painting as unpatriotic those individuals who change their opinions simply for political reasons is wholly appropriate, and that is what Glenn stated.
bullshit, John. Glenn didn’t say “there are some Democrats who are asking these questions solely for partisan reasons, and that is unpatriotic”. He said…
Bush needs to be very plain that this is all about Democratic politicans pandering to the antiwar base
If its “all” about “Democratic politicians pandering” there’s not a whole hell of a lot of room for anyone else who is questioning the war and its rationales….
Blue Neponset
How do you know people are changing their opinions simply for political reasons?
Also, I would like to clarify something. Do you consider Ted Kennedy, who has always been against the war, to be patriotic?
neil
Aww, what’s wrong? Did Kevin not acknowledge all the _nuance_ in Glenn’s argument, there? This has got to be one of the greatest outrages since…
Wait, I can do better. Here: This is outrageous. Glenn doesn’t deserve to have his character and motives questioned over expressing these views!
No no, wait! By omitting valuable context, Kevin is misleading his readers about his political opponents in a way that is just unacceptable.
Or: Kevin is so disingenous, why is he afraid to engage Glenn in a debate on whether Democrats are merely opportunistic, or if they actually hate America?
Lines
I don’t see a difference between what Drum said and the longer outtake from Glenn. I definately don’t see the same thing that Jeff sees, which appears that he’s going WAY out of his way to clarify Reynolds statement instead of letting it stand on its own.
It seems that Jeff and yourself take the only real action word from the paragraph in question, “pandering”, to mean those Democrats that are lying or misinterpreting data and events to spur on an anti-war crowd. And those that are doing that are “un-American”.
Of course, reading the rest of Reynold’s rant produces the points you are trying to get across, which is that he’s not labelling all anti-war people as “un-American”, but he comes pretty dang close. He attempts to make the point where no one can revisit the information they obtained and change their opinion and/or voice their change of heart.
This goes back over many of the discussions of the last few days, in which it can be seen that Bush in fact did lie. It also goes against much that has come out in the press over the last week, specifically that Bush and Company DID have different information than was supplied to Congress. If that is true, then the history has yet to be written, as there are too many unknowns.
Its somewhat too early to go over that information, I think. However, knowing that the 16 words were refuted by the intelligence agencies as well as many other documented exaggerations and outright lies, why shouldn’t people have a great mistrust in Bush, which makes it easier to believe he had more information than everyone else?
But I still have no idea why you are attacking Drum, I don’t see his message as being dishonest, but maybe thats because I’m on his side. Can you take some time, not call me names, and politely explain it?
neil
Question: Is it unpatriotic to dishonestly support a war of aggression to pander to the pro-war base? Or is that one OK?
jg
I swear once the words ‘patriotism’ or ‘troops’ are used its like a switch triggers and some people lose all grasp of the issue. I’m not saying they are bad people but IMO they are being used.
Saying the discussion is bad for the troops is the same as saying we can’t have the discussion. People who don’t want to have the discussion, who might be exposed or whatever by the discusssion, are the ones who say it will harm the troops. Coincidence?
Maybe it’ll help save troops. Why isn’t that said?
RalphF
“The first victory for the anti-war left itook place shortly after 911, when war supporters on the right agreed, however reluctantly, that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” and that we should not question anyone’s patriotism”
Boy, I sure don’t remember that occuring.
People changing their minds for political reasons may be jerks but I don’t know that it follows they’re unpatriotic.
John Cole
Paul- Nice try. The REVISIONISM (you know, the point of GLENN’s WHOLE POST) is all about all about Democratic politicians pandering.
John Cole
Don’t be silly. Of course not.
neil
The fact that Glenn’s post does not contain an antecedent to ‘this’ is probably adding to the confusion.
Mike S
Why do you call it “pandering” John, when it can be argued that they have come to their conclusion honestly?
SomeCallMeTim
It’s hard to believe you could makes so awful an argument, John.
1.“Painting as unpatriotic those individuals who change their opinions simply for political reasons is wholly appropriate, and that is what Glenn stated.”
Except that he isn’t indicating that there are people who believe (quite reasonably) that we were misled into war by the Administration, and have believed that from the beginning. He’s tarring everyone arguing about the evidence for war by not acknowledging principled beliefs that the evidence was fixed. These are, at best language games. It’s no different than listing WMD, 9/11 connections, and democracy as reasons to go into Iraq, and then pretending people took the three reasons as equivalently important. That’s a joke, and so is this argument by omission.
2.war supporters on the right agreed, however reluctantly, that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,”
Remind me about this. Are all the right wing blogs, including Insty, going to purge their archives, then? Because I’m willing to lay odds that we can find this principle more honored in breach than in keeping.
3.namely, that though the anti-war position is not inherently unpatriotic, those in the anti-war movement who use lies and misinformation to harm the country are
I’ll happily agree to that, if you’ll agree that pro-war arguments that used lies and mininformation were at least as unpatriotic. Then we can go to the archives, again, and see who wins.
Jeebus. It is the complete inability of the right to coherent thought that frightens me much more than any policy it pursues.
Caroline
Pandering to the anti-war base? Well, considering that about 57% of Americans now think that the war was a mistake I guess that would be pandering to the majority of Americans.
Tim F.
I think that the pro-war movement would be ill-advised to complain about lies and misinformation. This is particularly true when ‘harming the country’ seems to depend strongly on your point of view.
neil
OK, next question: If, in fact, you were lied to by someone starting a war to satisfy their pro-war base, is it unpatriotic to talk about it?
Anderson
What is John Cole talking about? I have no idea. Glenn’s post sucks in edited and full versions.
Bush’s b.s. is well refuted in Drum’s own takedown of Norman Podhoretz.
Glenn Reynolds is a smart guy who makes some incisive points. He is also an asshole who loves to imply that Democrats are traitors and anti-patriots. Call that a “vicious and pointed attack” or not, it’s the truth.
neil
And the final question: If you talk about the fact that you were lied by someone starting a war to satisfy their pro-war base, is it unpatriotic for someone to accuse you of pandering?
p.lukasiak
Paul- Nice try. The REVISIONISM (you know, the point of GLENN’s WHOLE POST) is all about all about Democratic politicians pandering.
Glenn didn’t say a word about “revisionism” when he said what “Bush needs to be plain about.” He didn’t say a word about Bush focussing on “democrats who changed their views”. Reynolds remarks include those Democrats who voted against the war.
Deal with what Reynolds is actually telling Bush to do, rather than what you wish he was saying, John.
Pb
My response:
Those who are now trying to recast other’s prior positions–made with incomplete information–through dishonest rewriting of history are not patriotic now, nor were they when they manipulated and concealed intelligence to get others to give them authority to wage a needless war, if they did so then out of opportunism (or otherwise)—which today’s history suggests.
Lines
Can I ask why comments are even open on this thread? John and Jeff G. arn’t going to suddenly reverse course, we’ve been having this discussion for over 2 years now, and the result just isn’t going to change. Isn’t this just one more step on the path of insanity? Glenn’s charges of “pandering” are easily refuted by those whose view of the situation are from a different angle, but that doesn’t mean Glenn is wrong, it just means he has a different view.
The big deal is why, with a 37% and falling approval rating, Bush attempts to come out with an attack against a poorly defined unAmerican subset, when its clear from multiple polls that well over 50% of America believes we were at least “misled” about the war.
Anderson
Oh, and Cole’s quotation accusing *Democrats* of “revisionism” — !!! — is enough to make any rational person want to retch.
The revisionism by Bush et al. has been revoltingly blatant, so much so that it stands out plainly as “revisionism.” Remember how we invaded Iraq to set up a democracy, not to round up the WMD?
Matt
Glenn’s full post doesn’t add nearly as much nuance to the quoted bit as you’re reading into it, John.
neil
…but that doesn’t mean Glenn is wrong, it just means he has a different view.
contrasts nicely with
They’re not anti-war. They’re just on the other side.
neil
Anderson, there’s also the point that Bush said in his speech that the Democrats voted “to overthrow Saddam”, despite the fact that he went around for two months after that vote saying that war was unnecessary and Saddam could stay in power if he’d just give up his nukes.
Revisionists.
aop
Drum’s post would be dishonest (which is the point in question here, correct?) except for the fact that Reynold’s post says:
So, since this is “all” about dishonest pandering by Democratic politicians (as opposed to honest disagreement/people changing their minds) then explain how Drum’s synopsis is dishonest:
It seems like an exact paraphrase to me. If you don’t want Reynolds’ nuanced views to be misrepresented, maybe you should suggest that he add some nuance to his views.
emily
The place where Glenn loses me is where he implies that opportunism and pandering are the primary reasons why a Democrat would cease to support the war, as opposed to a different understanding of the evidence, honest change of opinion, etc. Does he really mean to suggest that Democrats are that much more cynical than the majority party? Does he expect anyone to take that suggestion seriously?
John Cole
AOP- The revisionism is all about pandering. That is what all the lnks in the post are about. Revisionism.
Your interpretation of Glenn’s post is inaccurate. Kevin’s is dishonest.
I am off to take some pictures of the cat, since we have not had Friday cat blogging in a while.
Steve
WHEN did this mythical agreement on the Right take place that said dissent on the Left was patriotic and would not be questioned? Are we papering over the oft-heard comment that “they’re not anti-war, just on the other side”? Talk about revisionism!
This entire argument assumes the conclusion that Democratic politicians are not changing their position out of sincere belief. The only evidence for this is the eternal proposition that politicans on the other side of the aisle have no real beliefs. While people are free to believe the worst of the Democrats – and then use their unsupported assumption to “justify” charges of unpatriotism – it is equally plausible that many Democrats decided a long time ago that they had made a huge blunder by letting themselves get bullied into voting for war, but that they would look terrible if they admitted it. Politicians always want to play it safe, and the atmosphere is much friendlier now for true confessions. That doesn’t make the confessions false.
Reid
“…if we are ever going to have the type of internal domestic rapprochement that this country desperately needs.”
Is that before or after we get the pony?
What are you tokin’, John? Do you honestly not think this is our new permanent condition? You think those who’ve painted themselves red and blue are going to suddenly stop their stereotypical knee-jerk ad homimen to hug each other and sing Kumbaya?
This is today’s politics, left and right. Today’s politics has nothing to do with fairness. Or honor. Or factual accuracy. It’s about “winning” at any cost. Period.
Unless you’re thinking of it in terms of an addict who finally sees he’s got a problem. But we’re not there yet. We’ve still got several notches to go before the addicts are fully in the gutter.
neil
If changing your beliefs upon learning you were lied to is revisionism, then it is a good thing.
jg
IMO he’s saying they ain’t doing it out of love for country or respect for our military.
Anderson
John gets these fits from time to time, like when he was convinced that Atrios had defamed Joe Lieberman.
Best to let him calm down, forget the topic, and move on?
Mike S
From Goldstein’s post.
Let’s hope so. Because it will be a good time to look at the claim that congress got the same info as the President did.
You can read Yglesia’s post on just how honest that claim is. Or you can read the Judis/Ackerman article that it was pulled from.
Matt
Paddy O'Shea
Hey John:
Is Bush pandering to his base?
Of course he is.
Lines
Thank you for proving my point, John. You refuse to change your position on this, and there’s no point on even attempting to discuss it even further on this site.
Kimmitt
One of the unstated assumptions behind Reynolds’ blog is that all liberal actors are utterly cynical and hold no ideals other than a naked and unrestrain devotion to power. He generally assumes the best of conservatives, as per Bush’s speech above.
Anyways, I fail to understand why we’re hyperparsing a blog post. Reynolds gave the impression he sought to give, which is the same impression he generally gives, which is that support for the President in general and the Iraq war in particular is the litmus test for caring about the country and its citizens. This post of his doesn’t exist in a vaccuum, and the Professor regularly endorses statements with weasel language so as to maintain a faux civility.
I hate to say it, but I miss the Mussolini-style fascists. They at least were stylish.
KC
Yeah, I’m not at all seeing what Kevin did as dishonest. Glenn is telling Bush to question the patroitism of Democrats, plain and simple. Now, of course, Glenn’s stipulation is that he question them on the basis of their “pandering” and that this pandering is hurting the troops. However, because a few Democrats admit that they would have made a different decision in retrospect hardly equals pandering. After all, I’m pretty certain there are probably many politicians, Republican and Democratic, who wish they’d made a different decision. On the other hand, there are quite a few Democrats who also seem not to be pandering. Just look at what goes on at dkos and you’ll see plenty of antiwar types miffed at Clinton and Biden.
Additionally, I also question the whole notion that Democrats are trying to revise history. The way I see it, Democrats (and now Chuck Hagel) are interested in learning parts of a history that we’ve only gotten pieces of in the press, namely the history of the WH’s pre-war PR campaign to galvanize the public behind a war effort. That’s hardly revising history.
Davebo
I guess I should be tickled that Glen believes nearly 60% of Americans are now part of the Anti-War Left (and growing). I have no idea why you feel the additional paragraph justifies the frankly idiotic final sentence.
If only you had 2% of the intellectual honesty Mr. Drum has displayed on this subject. Which is odd because on nearly every other subject you seemt to do fine.
And of course, Jeff keeps making stuff up like..
“The first victory for the anti-war left itook place shortly after 911, when war supporters on the right agreed, however reluctantly, that “dissent is the highest form of patriotism,” and that we should not question anyone’s patriotism”
Pb
KC,
It would involve revising the administration’s story–which they like to refer to as ‘history’. This is also known as fact-finding, or ‘finding out the truth’.
Truth = Revisionism? We have always been at war with Eastasia.
Davebo
Also, one might ask an important question.
Is it even possible to “pander” the majority of the voters at one time on a single issue?
aop
Also, enough with “patriotism,” already. Why is it not enough to call someone a dishonest, pandering piece of shit? “Dishonesty” is verifiable. “Patriotic” isn’t.
Inspector Callahan
when they manipulated and concealed intelligence to get others to give them authority to wage a needless war, if they did so then out of opportunism (or otherwise)—which today’s history suggests.
And here is a good example of the revisionism that Glenn and John are talking about. Because the above statement is a complete fabrication.
You can’t honestly make the argument that intelligence was manipulated or created when it was the exact same intelligence that Clinton, Albright, Gore, the CIA, and every other reputable intelligence agency on the earth were reporting about before Bush took office. Unless you want to call Clinton, Gore, Albright, and the CIA liars as well. And even THAT wouldn’t prove that Bush is a liar – only that he believed THEIR lies.
If you make this argument without acknowledging that EVERYONE lied, you’re revising history. Period.
Clear enough?
TV (Harry)
Davebo
Sorry John
I promised myself not to play the “intellectually dishonest” card and I apologize for breaking the promise in this case.
And the fact that you approved the comment pretty much makes the claim itself dishonest.
Inspector Callahan
I guess I should be tickled that Glen believes nearly 60% of Americans are now part of the Anti-War Left (and growing).
Thanks to you lefties’ agitprop and your willing accomplices in the media, a lot of people in this country are gullible and believe you.
TV (Harry)
RSA
Like SomeCallMeTim, I find some of these complaints a bit disingenuous, even weaselly. For example:
Now, this might be taken as some generic and irrefutable statement of principle, but it’s really pretty empty if what counts as “revisionist history” or “false charges” is just left to the imagination of the reader. I’ll give the alternative from the other side:
Those in the pro-war movement who used lies and misinformation to bring this country to war, based purely on political motives, are the lowest form of traitors and should be vilified by all right-thinking people.
Should I expect equal praise for my clear-sightedness? The whole point is that there’s disagreement about what kind of information people had access to, and to accuse people of being anti-democratic because one can see into their cynical souls is just partisan blather.
Davebo
You have quotes of any of these people talking about aluminum tubes that could only have been ordered for nukular uses? Despite the objections of American experts at the DOE and DIA?
You have quotes of any of these people talking about IAEA reports on Iraq’s nukular program that were never written? And perhaps when one of these folks was called on that fact they then claimed they were referring to a IAEA report from the early 90’s that was also never written?
Do you have quotes of any of these people talking about mushroom clouds over American cities?
Or mobile biological weapons labs? Or drone aircraft capable of delivering those biological weapons to US soil?
Well, share them with us.
jg
Subjects where the words ‘patriotism’ annd ‘troops’ aren’t used. This is how they keep people on their side. Most people won’t stand with or defend someone being unpatriotic or speaking ill of our military. Others CAN’T. Its not an option. Its a reflex action. Its an instinct we all have but some have had it honed. Thats not a bad thing, its a very good thing. But its being used. Manipulated in a Pavlovian way. Thats the bad thing. Its used to put down dissent, even in dissenters ironically.
Davebo
Hey, if you wanna head into the mid term elections with a rallying cry of “Too many Americans are gullible idiots” I say go for it.
I can recall a recent time when those on the right liked to say only the left did that sort of thing..
Pb
Inspector Callahan,
What are you talking about? The above statement is an opinion (not a ‘fabrication’), but I will stand behind it 100%.
Now riddle me this: when did Clinton, Albright and Gore say that Saddam was an imminent nuclear threat? When did they claim to have classified information proving such claims? When did they distort the intelligence to reach these conclusions? When did they invade Iraq based on said information?
If you can’t see the pathetically obvious differences here, then I can’t help you.
Lee
I stopped reading Glen a long time ago because he does equate questioning the war or questioning the President about the war as unpatriotic.
John S.
I fail to see where anyone’s agitprop or media accomplices MAKES people gullible. Rather, agitprop and the media can exploit the gullibility that people already posess.
Next time you want to accuse ‘the left’ of something sinister, proofread to make sure it makes sense. 25-cent words do not make a cogent argument.
DougJ
Why do 60% of Americans hate freedom
DougJ
Whoops, I screwed up the link
Why do 60% of Americans hate freedom?
p.lukasiak
You can’t honestly make the argument that intelligence was manipulated or created when it was the exact same intelligence that Clinton, Albright, Gore, the CIA, and every other reputable intelligence agency on the earth were reporting about before Bush took office.
lets see now.
Niger-yellowcake claim made by Clinton,etc? NOPE
Aluminum tubes claim made by Clinton, etc? NOPE
Iraq in league with al Qaeda claim….? NOPE
A “grave and gathering threat” claim…? NOPE
do us a favor. get better quality of GOP talking points, because the ones you are using suck.
Horshu
What even is patriotism any more? Is it loving America unconditionally? I hope not, because if so, I am no patriot, as I dislike the America that veers into areas of torture and monarchical secrecy. I prefer to call that “nationalism,” and it’s not something I consider inherently positive.
Is patriotism loving the idealistic America? In that case, there are other pratfalls in that after 200+ years, no one really knows what the American ideal is, as it has been twisted and pulled into whatever balloon animal the clown who says “I think” makes it; the ideal is presented as an absolute much in the way various interpretations of the Bible are presented as The Word.
All in all, methinks patriotism is getting misused and consequently overrated, which can ultimately make it iconsequential…all on Veterans Day, too.
jg
IMO a patriot loves his country, not a political party or whoever happens to be taking a spin in the big chair.
Perry Como
The answer to that is obvious. The Democrats. The Democrats have been pandering to the radical left-wing anti-war socialists that support Ho Chi Minh, ever since the Islamofascist homicide bombers attacked us. If it wasn’t for the Democrats’ obstructionist ways, the President could aggressively pursue this Global War on Terror and bring the evildoers to justice.
It’s obvious that the reason we are in this war is because the Democrats did not do their job as an opposition party. Now that they have succeeded in misleading the American people, they are flip flopping on the support they originally gave the President.
Inspector Callahan
You have quotes…
Why do I need EXACT detail that they said the EXACT same things as Bush? Talk about moving the goalposts.
Look, they all said that Saddam was manufacturing, or had, WMD. Bush used this (as one of his reason) to go to war. Therefore, he couldn’t be lying, unless they lied too.
if you wanna head into the mid term elections with a rallying cry of “Too many Americans are gullible idiots” I say go for it.
For one thing, I’m not running for office. The above decision is left to those who are. But that doesn’t change anything I said – they ARE gullible idiots for changing their minds based on leftist agitprop, because that’s all this “Lying” meme is.
Now riddle me this: when did Clinton, Albright and Gore say that Saddam was an imminent nuclear threat? When did they claim to have classified information proving such claims?
This is ALSO dishonest. When Bush used “imminent threat”, he specifically said that he wasn’t an imminent threat – yet. He stated that Hussein should be stopped before he BECAME an imminent threat.
To answer your question as whole, read the following few quotes:
Based on the above, were your guys talking out of their asses? Or did they have posession of some intelligence that led them to believe the above? Or are they all liars like Bush?
Once again, the left is being entirely dishonest. Your own guys say the same things, and you have the gall to call Bush a liar.
I believe the word is “Chutzpah.”
TV (Harry)
Steve S
This is fascinating…
The “Big Lie”, appears to be that in the past other opinions were held and now that we find out those opinions were not true, it is a lie to question them.
Look at Glenn’s idiocy… He quotes Powerline complaining about Scheuer saying that bin Laden didn’t have an agreement with Iraq. Powerline quotes a 1998 indictment against Binladen as saying it clains he did. HELLO!? IT’S AN INDICTMENT. When Scooter Libby was indicted y’all told us this was just an opinion and now it had to be proven in court. Indictments are accusations, they are not in and of themselves the truth. DUH!
That’s the whole substance of Reynolds claims. That Democrats are formulating an alternative history. Well, I’m sorry, but they were pretty much forced to because the fucking evidence Bush claimed as justification IS NOT THERE, and he won’t back down from his decisions. That forces people to question whether that evidence had any bearing on his decision making process to begin with.
You want to do something about it? You want to solve this issue. You want to retreat with honor?
Have Bush come out and give a speech apologizing to the American people for being wrong.
Wow, that’d be a fucking nice start. But as long as you keep going around claiming that you made a good decision even though the fucking evidence turned out to be wrong… YOU ARE GOING GO GET HIT POLITICALLY.
Lee Iacocca once said, you either lead follow or get the fuck out of the way. So I am demanding of Republicans, either start leading and doing the right thing… or get the fuck out of the way because I am deathly fucking tired of your fucking whining already.
Inspector Callahan
do us a favor. get better quality of GOP talking points, because the ones you are using suck.
I see a pattern here. Since your guys didn’t publish details as to what the intelligence said, they were telling the truth. Since Bush used actual details to help justify the war (Uranium purchases, spy photos, etc.), he was lying.
My head is spinning from the illogic.
TV (Harry)
Gratefulcub
So, if a Democrat didn’t get all the intelligence, and he supported the war based on the partial evidence, and he now has more intelligence and information that he should have had pre-war, and he now believes the war was a mistake that we were mislead into, he is fair game. Unpatriotic.
That seems to be the biggest problem with the current batch of republicans. They make a decision with their ‘gut’, then refuse to reconsider that stance when more information becomes available. it is a badge of honor to be thought of as someone that ‘won’t change in the next 20 years.’
(Of course, if someone is changing their stance due to the poll data, that is unpatriotic. But, not as unpatriotic as the people that never supported the war, but did so with gusto in public because it was considered the patriotic thing to do. Those are the people we should throw the unpatriotic lable on.)
Steven Donegal
Pandering to the base? You bet.
Inspector Callahan
either start leading and doing the right thing… or get the fuck out of the way because I am deathly fucking tired of your fucking whining already.
What a crock of shit. (By the way, bolding in a blog usually means whining – you know, if the shoe fits and all…)
If it weren’t for your party’s lily-livered, chicken-shit appeasing philosphy starting in 1979 with Iran, we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion today. If it weren’t for Republican leadership (for all its faults) during the last 26 years, we’d be going through the same thing France is now.
Sorry, as long as I’M here on this planet, I will do whatever I can to make sure your party NEVER gets control of the levers again. As long as you spout the same dishonest arguments, and as long as you continue to prove you’re not serious about taking on the world’s terrorists, I’ll be voting on the right every time.
Take it for what it’s worth.
TV (Harry)
John S.
Yes, as evidenced by your fabulous quotes. Two of which predate the war by five years and one so full of ellipsis that it is impossible to determine what the context is. Good work, there.
Wow, talk about dishonest. Regarding the first part, a threat is either imminent or not. Adding the caveat “yet” to the phrase is totally preposterous. Regarding the second part, I’d love to see a quote that backs up your assertion.
An entirely dishonest statement in it of itself. I don’t think the ‘right’ is patently dishonest, but looks as if you sure as hell are.
BumperStickerist
A Democrat who had been paying attention to this issue would INSTANTLY recall President Clinton’s statement to our Great Nation (lip bite) as he sent cruise missiles into Iraq.
To wit:
okey-dokey. Months, not years. That coincides with the length of time during the 18 month ‘run-up’ to the war.
And the ‘strong inspection program’ called for was four years in the offing and, once implemented, included fewer than 100 inspectors in Iraq.
Any Reality-based willing to say that 100 hardy souls could inspect a Hussein-lead Iraq for compliance?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?
So, let’s not consider ANYTHING done by the UN as constituting a ‘strong inspection effort’.
Especially in light of the Oil-for-Food corruption.
The war was warranted, justified, given Hussein’s refusal to leave, inevitable.
oh, and it’s also been a success.
.
DougJ
Blindly supporting everything George Bush does, whether it is lying about pre-war intelligence, appointing cronies to head agencies like FEMA, running up over a trillion dollars in debt, cravenly doing the bidding of religious extremists, staying on vacation while cities flood, paying journalists to write favorable articles about the administration, condoning torture, leading thousands of servicemen to their deaths in a war of choice, or promising to bring Osama bin Laden to justice, then saying you don’t think about Osama bin Laden anymore, then saying that you ever said you didn’t think about Osama bin Laden anymore,
It doesn’t matter what he does: if you don’t like it, then you’re a treasonous America-hater who deserves to be blown to bits by Al Qaeda, just like the people of San Francisco do according to Bill O’Reilly.
Specifically, if you don’t like torture, then you’re terrorist-coddling ACLU scum. If you criticize the war, it’s because you’re bitter about your lack of influence in the administration (Scowcroft, Wilkerson) or because you’re a pathologically dishonest French spy (Joe Wilson). If you don’t like how FEMA handled New Orleans, then you’re in bed with scum like Ray Nagin and Kathleen Blanco, or worse yet, Aaron Broussard, the most dishonest and most powerful man in all of America. If you don’t like running up trillions of dollars in debt, it’s because you’re a tax-and-spend liberal, who doesn’t understand that “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter”. If you don’t like the fact that James Dobson is in charge of who gets to be on the Supreme Court you’re a militant secularist who is part of the war on Christmas. If you believe that outting a secret agent and then lying to a grand jury is a crime, then you’re an overzealous, hypocritical thug.
Mike S
heh
You really should take a look at my links upthread. And I’m not sure using the “Uranium purchases” furthers your point.
Inspector Callahan
So, if a Democrat didn’t get all the intelligence, and he supported the war based on the partial evidence, and he now has more intelligence and information that he should have had pre-war, and he now believes the war was a mistake that we were mislead into, he is fair game.
Strawman city. The entire sentence is pure speculation. How do you know what intelligence the Democrats have seen and not seen? What makes you so sure that they haven’t seen as much as the President?
Let’s put it this way – they have. They’ll never admit to that, because it would make Bush look honest, them look bad, and piss off their anti-war base.
Which is EXACTLY what Glenn Reynolds was saying:
TV (Harry)
Steve S
Oh, and one more thing. You can tell what the True Believers fear by how they attack you.
Glenn Reynolds is now attacking Democrats claiming they are pandering.
The Iraq War Resolution was a TRAP.
John Kerry and many others voted for the Iraq War Resolution, because he took the Bush administration at it’s word. That is, they were saying that this really wasn’t authorization to go to war, it was just a bluff to get Hussein to allow weapons inspectors back in.
They voted for it because when sold on those terms, it was in the best interests of the nation. WE HAD TO GET THOSE INSPECTORS BACK INTO IRAQ. This bluff was the only way to force his hand.
Well now John Kerry and many other Democrats have a different opinion. In hindsight, now that all this evidence has come out that the Bush administration manipulated the Iraq war for Political Opportunism.(May I remind you of the Downing Street Memo that was published by the London Times) They have changed their minds.
And now they’re “Pandering!?” and not Patriotic!? Give me a fucking break.
Whatever.
In the end the decision to go to war was made by PRESIDENT BUSH. You cannot get around that. So now that we find out the reasons for going to war were wrong, guess whose fault it is?
Bingo… GW Bush.
It is disengenuous in the extreme for Glenn Reynolds and the other fucking tools to claim that it is the Democrats responsibility for us being in this quagmire of a war.
But then I’m not surprised to see tools argue that point, because you never can predict what lame ass argument they are going to make.
DougJ
Glenn Reynolds is just spouting the usual right-wing line: “If you don’t worship George Bush, you’re a left-wing, America-hating, treasonous, terrorist-loving militant secularist”. It’s all fruit from the poison tree.
Steve S
Yeah, because it was a Democratic administration who sold Iran weapons in trade fo hostages.
Get a better argument.
aop
Oh right, because the Republicans have OBL and co. in custody, correct? You guys are for sure serious. Super-serious!
Andrew J. Lazarus
I don’t remember anyone talking about patriotic critics right after 9/11. Wasn’t Bush’s approval rating in the 90s? He got every vote in Congress except my Representative’s (and I think she was wrong)?
I guess Jeff means about 18 months after 9/11 when Bush made a big screwup (for the long term) in order to shatter the Democratic Party and bring the Republicans to an intense wargasm. But by then, dissent wasn’t so patriotic any more.
As for Inspector Callahan, go back to Colin Powell’s Power Point to the UN and count up just how many of his points were true and how many are now known to be false.
Mike S
Reagan was a pussy. If he had attacked Iran, as opposed to trading arms with them, we wouldn’t be in this position.
Inspector Callahan
Steve S,
That was after 1979, by the way, if it ever happened at all.
See what I mean about dishonest?
TV (Harry)
DougJ
It if wasn’t for Donald Rumsfeld’s and Dick Cheney’s chicken shit support of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war..
Inspector Callahan
Reagan was a pussy. If he had attacked Iran, as opposed to trading arms with them, we wouldn’t be in this position.
And the chickenshit anti-war types would have screamed then, too.
Heh. And you guys suggest to ME about getting a better argument.
TV (Harry)
Matt D
What is so hard to comprehend here? Glenn’s point is that politicians who are knowingly misrepresenting (i.e., rewriting) the historical context surrounding the arguments in favor of the War in Iraq in an effort to either (i) score cheap political points with an excited anti-war base or (ii) (for the benefit of the posters here who are trying to move this thread off-topic) to score cheap policial points by trying to caplitalize on the growing unpopularity of the War or (iii) to provide themselves political cover for their votes in favor of force back in 2002, so they can tell the voters in 2006 that Bush tricked them into voting for the War–these politicians are undermining the war effort and are supplying propoganda for our enemies. That is not “dissent”; that is political opportunism at its worst, and yes, “unpatriotic.”
From Glenn himself:
Steve S
As a Democrat, what I remember is how this attack was called “Wag the Dog” by the Republicans. So much for GOP patriotism.
And Richard Clarke in his book notes that the attack of 1998 was not just a handful, but a lot. We dropped a lot of ordinance on Iraq. They dropped those bombs on everywhere that they thought Hussein might be hiding weapons, and in their approximation if he still had weapons in 1998, the bombing campaign put and end to that.
Regardless, Clinton never invaded Iraq. No matter what he said against Hussein, he never invaded Iraq. That decision was made solely by one G.W. Bush.
Why is it all you guys got is excuses? Can’t you come up with real arguments?
Mike S
You have got to be kidding. Either that or you make Davey look like a Rhodes Scholar.
DougJ
So he’s such a pussy that he was intimidated by the anti-warn types? I have a higher opinion of him than you do, obviously.
Steve S
Yes, you explained dishonesty perfectly.
Sheesh
Salt Lick
This whole thing is such a game. Most of you people attacking Cole’s post don’t think the United States has been a net positive for mankind over the last 50 years. You think we’re arrogant and more often create suffering and turmoil as opposed to freedom and opportunity. I know you. I was once one of you — Carter campaign worker, Peace Corps volunteer, member Amnesty International — I know you are not only unpatriotic, but you despise the U.S. with a passion. Let’s stop the charade.
Pb
Inspector Callahan,
I will reply to you one more time, which will likely make this a couple of times too many.
Waah. Poor you. You made the claims, you back them up.
Not at all, and I resent the implication. But I’ll excuse you this time because you apparently have no idea of what dishonesty is or looks like at all.
Indeed. And he subsequently did. Making Saddam *even less* of a danger to anyone. And he had to drag along the Republicans, kicking and screaming, because they didn’t even think Saddam was a threat *then*. Way to make your point.
Also, see Kerry’s statement, and note that he got his facts from that CIA intelligence report I linked to… hrm, seems like his case was built on their case… and where did that come from? Do you have your fingers in your ears yet? I thought so!
No.
Yes.
Where do you think the intelligence came from?
Once again, you fail it. Our guys say different things and a different times, your guys stovepipe phony intel and invade Iraq. And you have the gall to excuse it because it’s “the same”.
I believe the word is “zealot”.
DougJ
Salt Lick — I believe the US was a positive force in the world for at least 45 of the last 50 years. Don’t give me that bullshit. Go put on a Lee Greenwood CD and watch the O’Reilly Factor. And see if you can get your school board to start teaching intelligent design while you’re at it.
John S.
Yes, you are the epitome of dishonest. Your claim that Democrats ruined the Middle East in a year:
So if the appeasement was started in 1979 by Democrats, what happened when their rule ended one year later? And what happened over the next 12 years under Republicans? And yet somehow you manage to claim that one year of Democratic policy created the situation in the Middle East?
Dishonest indeed.
Mike S
I know you as well. You’re the pathetic idiot that swallows GOP talking points like a professional bukkake recipient. You’re the idiot that thinks O’Reilly doesn’t spin and Hannity is “a great American.”
ppGaz
Jesus. Okay, I just wasted a half hour of my time. I read my way down through the link tree. I had already seen Drum’s post earlier, because I read two blogs every day, this one and WashMonthly.
Try as hard as I can, I can’t find the beef. Drum appears to have accurately portrayed the target material, and while it is taken out of its original context, I can’t find that it changed the meaning. If the original meaning is misprepresented then the original article needs to be rewritten because a reasonable person would conclude that the quoted blurb means exactly what it appears to mean. And even if there is a subtle, other way to interpret it … and I’m not saying there is, I’m just hypothesizing for example, you know, the way Bill Bennett and all them fancy pundits do ….. even if there is, so the fuck what?? Who is going to take the time and effort to see it that way and interpret it that way?
The facts here are simple: The WHIG and its spin machine have employed the “fer us or agin us” strategy on Americans from day one of their operations. The idea was then and is now to portray war dissenters as weak, as traitorious, as betraying the troops, as being Saddam lovers, as being soft on terrorism …. ANY CHARACTERIZATION THAT IMPEACHED THEM, distracted from their views, or puffed up the official position.
It’s grotesque manipulation, and it’s the reason why support for this clusterfuck is tanking …. because people know they have been manipulated and they see what it has bought them and they are not satisfied with the result. They don’t trust the potatoheads any more, and they should not, because they are not trustworthy.
Them are the facts, and I swear to DG’s G-d, I have no idea what prompted this thread, because I can’t make any sense of it.
For the record, neither I nor anybody I know is “revising” his position on this matter. I said in 2002 the same thing about this war that I say today, no change. I wasn’t confused by the mixed intelligence and signals then, I am not confused today. If the government of this country can’t do better at figuring this shit out than an almost-retired private citizen in Arizona can do, then the whole lot of them should be fucking fired and should never be allowed to work in government again, unless they want to go to work in Iran, where they might fit in better.
Steve S
You tell me, because you don’t seem to comprehend it.
There are two aspects to the anti-war Democrats. There are those who are pretty much against any and all wars. Then there are those, like myself, who are against any war which is not well justified.
We have been arguing for quite some time now, since late 2002 that Bush wanted to go to war with Iraq regardless of justification. That he put together that Iraq War Resolution purely as a political ploy, in hopes of using it to rally jingoistic national fervor and vote some Democrats out of office in 2002. We have argued that there was no justification to go to war in Iraq. The Sanctions, and the Inspections had clearly worked, perhaps not to eliminate Hussein, but to keep his weapons potential in check.
As it turns out, EVERYTHING we suspected has turned out to be true. Now granted, we have not lost as many soldiers as I had feared, but I credit that to the quality of their training and the technology of the weapons they are armed with.
So now we’ve bene making this argument.
And meanwhile the fucking Washington insider doormat politicians have been telling us “You don’t know what you’re talking about. If we don’t support this war we’ll look like pansies.” and we told them to fuck off, either get out of the way or do what we tell them.
Why? Because they are OUR REPRESENTATIVES!
So I don’t care if they are pandering now, or pandering in the past.
What I care about is that they are finally standing up and making a strong argument against this fucking idiocy.
You want me to shut up, then either withdrawl the troops… or have Bush put someone who knows what the fuck they are doing in charge like Gen. Wesley Clark. or resign and get the fuck out of the way and let us handle it.
you clowns have proven yourselves to be clowns filled with nothing but hot air and hyperbole. You have nothing to say but excuses, and I’m tired of your fucking whining about how unfair we are to point out THAT WE WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG!
Steve S
Really, tell me more about how I think.
I love this great country of ours. What I cannot stand are the fucking tool politicians who are destroying it’s greatness.
Go put your nose up against the blackboard you fucking strawman whiner.
OCSteve
1. A poll where the sample was overly Dems. Surprise!
2. The point has been made. Go with the big lie – repeat again and again. Take a poll that supports your big lie. Point to the poll as evidence the big lie is true.
Damn. I coulda been a dictator.
Jazz
Claims by the right wing Bush supporters calling people on the left “historical revisionists” turn my stomach, since that is exactly what the Bushies have been doing ever since their “justification” for this war went south. The original historical revisionism that’s been going on originated with people like Dean Esmay and all the other war hawks who have been claiming that Bush “never said it was all about WMD’s, but was about liberating the Iraqis and spreading Democracy.” If you don’t have a totally closed mind,
read this post at Atrios for linked references.
Bush: “Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with Iraq.”
Bush: “But I am very firm in my desire to make sure that Saddam is disarmed. Hopefully, we can do this peacefully. The use of the military is my last choice, is my last desire.”
There’s a lot more. All taken straight from the White House’s web site, not some “left wing moonbat” site.
Now, apparently, the choice of casting “historical revisionsim” assertions is falling to telling the Democrats that since they voted for the war (based on Bush’s lies and deceptions which are now being proven) that they are re-writing history.
The expansion of the Nigergate investigation has revealed that Hadley met with Italian SISMI operatives prior to the infamous 2003 State of the Union address and KNEW that the Niger uranium documents were forged. If he knew, then Condi and Bush knew. The lies are being proven and the truth is slowly bubbling to the surface. You can keep denying it all you like, but the truth is coming out, slowly (due to GOP footdragging) but surely. And the house of cards is going down. Get used to it. It’s coming, and you can’t stop it.
This is all on top of revelations from former adinistration insiders that Bush was planning this war in Texas before he ever came into office and he’d do anything he had to in order to make it happen.
Steve S
Ok. I have to admit that I am really angry right now.
but it serves no purpose for me to respond, because it’s quite obvious that the True Believers(i.e. Bush worshippers) will continue to live with their heads in the sand and continue to attack patriotic Americans such as myself who demand America be a better country.
I’m just glad George Washington isn’t around to see this shit. Or even Ronald Reagan. They’re probably rolling over in their graves right now to see the kind of bullshit the Republicans are trying to spin.
I’m outta here. It’s friday night, and I’m going to go do my patriotic duty, to go to a restaurant and eat a lot of food, get drunk and go to a strip club and smoke cigars.
Good Luck and Good Night.
John S.
Translation
1. Only polls that are favorable to the GOP are accurate.
2. Go with the big lie, like my big lie that a majority of Americans are still down with Iraq.
DougJ
OCSteve, there’s a simpler explanation for that poll, though: the America-hating left-wing media has convinced 57% of Americans to hate freedom and America.
RSA
Is there an elephant in this room? Isn’t is possible that the 57% of Americans who feel duped by the Bush administration are thinking, “Wait a minute, I thought we went into Iraq because (a) they were involved in 9/11 and (b) they were going to throw nukes and chemical weapons at us!” Talk about rewriting history. . .
DougJ
BTW, Glenn isn’t bad in general. He’s just out of line here. Questioning the patriotism of others shouldn’t be considered acceptable. That should be added to Godwin’s law/Cole’s law: “Whoever questions the other’s patriotism first loses the argument.”
Jazz
I nominate DougJ for founding credit for the next great internet(s) debate law. “Cole’s Law”.
“Whoever questions the other’s patriotism first loses the argument.”
OCSteve
No. On a politically charged question, only polls that are 50/50 R/D with a large sample are accurate.
DougJ
OCSteve, does that mean independents shouldn’t count at all? About 30-35% of Americans are independents, you know.
wilson
Glenn hit a flat note, clearly, as did Bush (and J Cole).
The more real question is not if the facts turned out wrong, they did, but if anyone acted in bad faith.
I for one do not see bad faith, though the excess of enthusiasm (leaving out important qualifiers) skirts the line.
I use the “honesty in fact” definition for “good faith” in the Uniform Commercial Code.
If Bush had said now that I propose that Reid et al should not further investigate the facts we got wrong until we have the troops back safe and sound, I would probably agree. To say we already have done the full investigation blinks reality.
DougJ
OCSteve: if you really want to accurate, you should also stick to robo-polls. Survey USA, which robo-polls, has the best accuracy rate of any major poll. I’m not sure how they weight party affiliation. That said, AP-Ipsos is a very respected poll.
Vladi G
Wow. If Jeff really believes this, he’s lost it. He really needs to seek professional help.
Salt Lick
Questioning the patriotism of others shouldn’t be considered acceptable. That should be added to Godwin’s law/Cole’s law: “Whoever questions the other’s patriotism first loses the argument.”
I bet people that hate their country especially support the notion that questioning patriotism shouldn’t be acceptable. What’s that saying — “patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels?”
Pb
I’m actually a bit of a polling buff–I’m a big fan of polls. What OCSteve is saying–without providing evidence–sounds precisely like sour grapes. However, he may have a point, depending on the poll. I say, if you don’t like a given poll, then at a minimum find another recent poll or two, and take the median.
Some of my favorites:
Pew’s Typology Groups — great for exposing intra-party feuds, but the data might be a little… well, dated. Still very insightful stuff, though.
Polling Report — just the facts, ma’am–all the latest major polling numbers, or most of them, anyway.
PollKatz — Bush’s job approval, compiled from a variety of sources. A meta-poll, if you will.
Survey USA — their 50 State Tracking Polls are especially good, and interesting.
jg
Damn right and its what the right keeps patting themselves on the back for, their patriotism.
Mike
“DougJ Says:
OCSteve, there’s a simpler explanation for that poll, though: the America-hating left-wing media has convinced 57% of Americans to hate freedom and America.”
That sounds about right.
Don’t forget the Lefty Politicians and BLogs though. They always try and do their part as well.
DougJ
Careful, Mike, you’ll blow your cover.
DougJ
PB, I think pollkatz and Survey USA are the best sources. I look at pollingreport all the time, but it doesn’t provide averages nor does it provide Survey USA data.
Have you checked out Mystery Pollster?
DougJ
Probably true, just as the people who most object to being called Nazis are in fact Nazis.
croatoan
Teddy Roosevelt:
Mike S
Wilson
In some ways I agree with you. I disagree with people who say Bush lied because I think he believed that Iraq had WMD’s. However I disagree with you about acting in good faith.
My opinion is that he misled the country by ignoring/hiding the information that was contradictory to his claims. That, IMO, is acting in bad faith. If the country is going to debate the most important decision it can make then all facts should be on the table, not just the facts that support your claim.
I’m also somwhat sympathetic to your point about waiting until the troops are back home. The problem with that is that it doesn’t look like that will happen anytime even remotely soon although I hope I’m wrong.
If I am right and the administration misled us into a war then they must be held to account. If for no other reason than to make sure that any future President’s administration is completely aware that they will be destroyed for doing this sort of thing again.
Salt Lick
Damn right and its what the right keeps patting themselves on the back for, their patriotism.
And many years ago we had a Democratic party that likewise patted itself on the back for its patriotism,, instead of stabbing its country in the back for perceived failures.
Jazz
Here is specifically how Bush *LIED* in the speech today. If you dare step outside the echo chamber, read it.
Mike
“Salt Lick Says:
Damn right and its what the right keeps patting themselves on the back for, their patriotism.
And many years ago we had a Democratic party that likewise patted itself on the back for its patriotism,, instead of stabbing its country in the back for perceived failures.”
I think that party pretty much died with Kennedy unfortunately.
DougJ
Teddy Roosevelt hated America.
DougJ
A little better, Mike, but still kind of suspicious. The weird punctuation/quotation mark thing is good, though.
Mike S
From Jazz’s link. Links for sources can be found at his link.
Pb
DougJ,
Yeah, Polling Report is just good for keeping up-to-date on the numbers for the latest network polls, etc. They also don’t track Rasmussen, and probably a few others.
I read Mystery Pollster from time to time. I think he personally probably leans a tad to the right for my tastes, but at least he’s earnest and honest about looking at the numbers, which is pretty much what matters when you’re talking about polling.
However, I don’t really consider him to be a source of raw polling data (although sometimes he does point the way, or comes up with something interesting himself). He is a pretty good resource, though.
ppGaz
I’m not taking that kind of advice from anybody, including Jesus H. Christ himself, who hasn’t had the guts to say he was wrong about the need for war in Iraq, that the case for the war was overstated and based on assumptions now know to have been wrong, and that nothing he says about the war going forward is going to be grounded in trying to justify or rationalize that mistake.
Call it a litmus test. Anybody who doesn’t have the guts to stand up and say that, Dem, Repub, Indy, or Libertarian, has no standing to speak to me on the subject, period. I am not interested in what that person thinks, I have no respect for that person’s views on this subject, and I have no reason that such a person is being truthful with me now.
If that sounds unreasonable, tough. That’s what you get when you take a country to war based on horseshit and then try to discredit anyone who questions it. That’s what you get.
ppGaz
“no reason that such” –> “no reason to think that such”
Matt D
I don’t understand why people are throwing around these poll numbers. The fact that 57% (or whatever number you want to use–let’s just stipulate that it’s a majority) of Americans are dissatisfied with the war does not have anything to do with the issue of whether politicians, bloggers, pundits and comment posters are trying to reframe the pre-war debate to suggest that the Bush Administration concocted the entire concept that Iraq possessed WMDs, and that the goal of reframing the debate is to score political points that will hopefully translate into votes. Evidently, it’s working, because now you have people saying that the Congressmen who voted in favor of the use of force were “tricked” into it by Bush & Co. I’m not blindly supporting the President; he has done many things wrong in his conduct of the War, but to me “blind” is suggesting that every Democrat who supported the war in the beginning and who is now against it is entirely justified because they innocently believed the lies President Bush was feeding them.
Salt Lick
Naw, unless you mean Robert, not Jack, I’d suggest the Democratic party turned on America later, in the 70’s. Carter, whom I worked to elect, gave much credence to the notion that America was a country that had probably done more bad than good, and therefore must suffer for its sins. Kind of a Hazel Motes figure. Reagan raised up American exceptionalism, but I remember how it drove the Dems crazy. They had come to believe we had created more victims than benefactors. It’s when the vitriol really grew — Doonesbury, etc, led the charge.
DougJ
Ppgaz, I agree completely. That’s why Hillary must be stopped. I’m not kidding. I think she’s Bush-lite.
joshua
I think Bush’s service has been disinterested, yes.
Salt Lick, you: retarded. Sorry. Had to say it.
Point is, it’s not okay for Drum to pontificate on the possible unspoken motivations of conservatives who support abortion notification laws, yet Reynolds may pontificate on the possible unspoken motivations of Democrats questioning the war.
ppGaz
Heh, well, one never knows with you when you are being tongue in cheek. But I already said, here, a long time ago, that I probably wouldn’t want to vote for her for prez unless she is running against somebody really hideous, like Frist or some Republican wingnut lunatic. I can even swallow my pride and vote for the whore McCain against her, although his middle east policy direction is probably no saner than our own Saudi-Bush axis is now. I dunno, the man is so fucking ambitious he glows in the dark.
Mike
” I have no respect for that person’s views on this subject, and I have no reason that such a person is being truthful with me now.”
What would ever lead you to believe that anyone would CARE whether they have your respect or not?
Salt Lick
Salt Lick, you: retarded. Sorry. Had to say it.
That’s OK, josh. Just don’t question my patriotism.
Mike S
I’m pretty sure you mean your nationalism.
ppGaz
The same hubris that makes you post your stupid bushmonkey crap here all the time, I guess.
Actually, a lot of people care, not about what I think, but about the general tone of this commentary. And John must realize by now that the number of people who are going to support him on this subject is down to approximately Stormy, Rick, Darrell, you and a couple other people who haven’t had an original idea in the time I’ve been here. Not a one of you can say a word on this subject that isn’t tied to the albatross called “Justify a war ginned up on assumtions EVERY ONE OF WHICH has been shown to be wrong.” I mean, that’s a wonderful position to be in. Which do you want to be? Stupid, or dishonest? Select one, because there aren’t any other choices available.
This party is over, pal. It was over a long time ago, and you will continue to watch this blog go through the death rattle of its legacy position on this subject until it can’t any more. That’s all. Support for the war is not coming back, ever. Support for Bush is not coming back. He’s toast.
neil
Hey, ppGaz, now that’s not fair. Saddam -did- try to kill his daddy.
DougJ
I won’t vote for McCain or Hillary. I think McCain’s too much of a showboat and I oppose McCain-Feingold (though Feingold made up for that in my mind for voting against the patriot act, so I would vote for him). Really, there aren’t too many out there who excite me on either side. Rudy’s a big fraud and a whore, too. I’m hoping that the Dems put up Brian Schweitzer (governor from Montana). The only Republicans I can think of that I would support are Chuck Hagel and (obviously there’s now way he’d get the nomination) Michael Bloomberg.
I do sometime call Brian Schweitzer “Albert Schweitzer” or “Brian Setzer” though, so maybe I can’t vote for him, either.
ppGaz
Hmm.. Imagine, wanting to kill a guy who rained war down on you and declared you to be Hitler reincarnated.
I’ve said it before, Saddam was a bad motherfucker, but he wasn’t crazy. Actually, except for a really bad read on our ME policy, he wasn’t that stupid either. Of course, trying to get a read on US ME policy has always been about a notch away from astrology.
Salt Lick
I’m pretty sure you mean your nationalism.
Ah, there it is. I knew I’d get it out of you if I was patient. You don’t like anyone saying America is exceptional, do you Mike?
neil
In my day, we didn’t call it _patience_, we called it _trolling_.
ppGaz
Bloomberg? Really? I hadn’t thought of that possibility.
Interesting. Rudy is out, I wouldn’t vote for him for dogcatcher. Okay, for dogcatcher, but that’s about it. Okay, Director of Animal Control.
Salt Lick
Support for the war is not coming back, ever. Support for Bush is not coming back. He’s toast.
It’s that kind of stuff that’s most telling. Because whether the war, as it is now, is a totally different subject than whether we went to war under false pretenses. We could have gone to war for false reasons, but still be in a war that will change the world for the better and provide for American security. But for many folks, it’s not about doing the right thing, right now, but about making sure Bush is toast.
Salt Lick
In my day, we didn’t call it patience, we called it trolling.
Don’t want to troll, neil. I thought this site was kind of a no man’s land. Is this a lefty-site? I didn’t know.
neil
When you say things designed to provoke somebody into saying a certain thing, that is called trolling. Not patience.
ppGaz
You are so full of crap. I might have been the first person on this blog as a lefty to declare that “doing the right thing” by staying in Iraq was necessary, and I used those exact words. If I was not the first, I was right up there.
Bush is toast regardless. The people don’t trust him any more. Nothing you can do about it, or me for that matter.
The problem is, how does this lying sack now lead the country to do the right thing?
Hey, that’s your problem. He’s your president, send him a letter and give him your best advice.
RSA
It’s not generic dissatisfaction with the war in Iraq, it’s that most believe Bush misled us into the war:
Regaining credibility, for Bush, means admitting that some of his decisions were wrong and making the case (if possible) that they were justified even if they turned out wrong. In other words, taking responsibility, something he doesn’t have much experience with. It’s easier to stonewall, blame critics, and stir up the base.
neil
Salt Lick, us anti-war types don’t have to ‘make sure’ Bush is toast. He did it to himself. It should be noted, in fact, that we tried to stop him.
a guy called larry
At least the planets move in definite, regular, and predictable patterns.
Paddy O'Shea
Salt Lick: Get over it. Bush is suffering the same kinds of criticism any president would face for taking us to war and then not winning it. That he doesn’t even have a plausible reason for getting us into this mess in the first place only exacerbates his problems.
He gambled, and as far as anyone can tell now, he lost.
Nothing left now but the whining from his increasingly small base of support.
Salt Lick
When you say things designed to provoke somebody into saying a certain thing, that is called trolling. Not patience.
Never heard that definition of trolling. I thought it was going to a site you knew was opposite your own views and commenting to disrupt conversation.
byrd
Mike S., that may well be the most cogent and thoughtful thing I see on this thread. Well done.
Next, while I like Jeff Goldstein a lot and I recall far more leftys complaining about having their patriotism questioned after 9/11 then I remember rightys questioning their patriotism, I don’t know where he got that part about dissent being the highest form of patriotism. I don’t remember that.
That said, Drum did clearly lie about Glenn’s post. Glenn first implicitly and later explicitly limited his statement to those who opposed the war in bad faith and Drum Dowdified it to read those who opposed the war.
Is there anybody here who would claim with a straight face that nobody who opposed the war opposed it in bad faith?
In fact many opposed it because they’d rather see Bush be wrong then see 25 million Iraqis be free of a tyrant. And that’s without touching on all the people who opposed the war because Saddam paid them to oppose it (thankfully, so far none of those have been American)
ppGaz
Is there an oil constellation?
byrd
Wow, a lot of people posted while I was reading. I mean this Mike S. post:
https://balloon-juice.com/?p=6030#comment-96587
neil
No. It’s someone who enters a discussion with an attempt to disrupt it, for instance by attempting to provoke someone into calling you a nationalist
DougJ
I don’t think he has any chance. I like him a lot, because my main criterion is competence. That’s why I hate this administration so much.
Tim F.
I challenge you to support that.
DougJ
Not because of gravity, though — it’s because of intelligent movement.
ppGaz
Behold his mighty power!
(Moses, as portrayed by Charlton Heston)
(Apologies to the real Moses)
Salt Lick
Well, gotta go to supper ladies and gents. But whether Bush lied or not, I think this time next year we’ll see troops coming home, Iraq taking a new democracy’s baby-steps, and an entire Middle East moving toward a freedom it would never have had if not for George Bush’s foreign policy. At that time, I hope we’ll join together as patriotic Americans in celebrating a seminal change in world history.
DougJ
I think the pro-Bush types truly don’t understand that a lot of Americans were ambivalent-to-supportive of the war because (a) they thought Saddam had WMD and (2) they thought we would be greeted as liberators.
I was ambivalent-to-supportive and I plead guilty on both counts. I went from being upset about the strength of insurgency to being upset that the neocons had no plan to being upset that we’re still there. It’s a natural progression and one a majority of Americans will go through, if they haven’t already.
DougJ
We all hope you’re right.
ppGaz
Talk to a psychiatrist. For $150 an hour he’ll tell you the same thing I will for free, right here: Your blurb is called Magical Thinking.
Good enough for daydreaming. Not good enough for running a country, unfortunately.
Davebo
I suppose this is the inevitable next stage.
You can’t really talk about “a few discontents” anymore.
You’ve really worn out the “we’ve turned a corner” line.
You’ve captured Zarqawi’s “Number 2 Man” like 30 times right?
So you whine about folks pointing out to you that you’ve totally screwed the pooch.
byrd (not implying you in the above but in the below)
Drum quoted him verbatim and provided a link to the post. Considering what this is really all about, the idea that Congress really didn’t see the intelligence the Bush Administration saw, that’s a pretty petty complaint and to call it a lie doesn’t make the GOP complaints here look very good.
A.C. Newman Is A Songwriting Genius
KC wrote:
Now, I’m singling out KC’s comment only because it tidily sums up the basic assertion made by many others here. So let’s clear this up just as tidily:
Reynolds is not suggesting that Bush question the patriotism of Democrats because Democrats have pandered. Reynolds is suggesting that Bush question the patriotism of those engaged in historical revisionism of the war.
In his post, Reynolds makes four different observations about this revisionism:
= He believes it is harmful to troops abroad.
= He believes it is unpatriotic.
= He believes there are Democratic politicians who are using it to pander.
= He believes it is dishonest.
There’s nothing complicated here. It’s all very simple. Like most Instapundit posts, this one is short and to the point. I’m actually not a big Instapundit aficionado for this very reason — I prefer commentators who spend a little more time with their topics. But that doesn’t mean his short-and-to-the-point posts are imprecise; they are, in fact, the complete opposite.
As Reynolds would say, read the whole thing. And stop trying to read between the lines just to score the very sort of cheap and dishonest political points he’s complaining about in the first place.
Mike S
I think we live in the best country in the world. If we could get rid of the morons that confuse nationalism with patriotism it would be even better.
Godwin’s Law prohibits me from comparing you to recent historical examples of idiots like you.
Tex MacRae
Why do logic and empirical evidence hate America and Glenn Reynolds (which, of course, are effectively the same thing)?
Retief
The democratic politicians that Glenn is attacking have gone through the same change of mind that much of the country has gone through in the past 2 and a half years. Support for the war was overwhelming when Bush started it. Since then it has declined. Now a majority of Americans have concluded that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. (Oddly enough, they believe their own eyes rather than the “what mushroom cloud” protestations of folks like Glenn.) They’ve gone through the same evolution as the Democratic politicians have. Does that make the big middle of the country unpatriotic as well? Are all of them the anti-war base? ‘Cause, if 57% or whatever it is constitutes the new antiwar base, Glenn is in more trouble than he realizes.
ppGaz
Well, you hit today’s nail right on the head: Bush is out there talking as if waffling “Democrats” are going back on their previous support for this war. But the poll numbers are not about Democrats, they’re about the people at large. The people at large are not being persuaded by Democrats. Nor will they be persuaded by Bush’s lame argument. They are persuaded by the gap between the words that come out of politicians’ mouths, and the realities that present themselves after the words.
That’s why we can know that support is not going to come back. The reality gap is permanent. What on earth are Bush’s advisors thinking today, talking about how “even the Democrats” thought there were WMDs? The fact is, THEY WERE ALL WRONG.
Americans don’t hire Republicans to be “righter than Democrats.” They hire them to be right. Period.
Slide
NAME THE AUTHOR CONTEST
From time to time I’ll post a snippet from some commentary relevant to the topic at hand and see who can first guess the author. Today’s commentary:
.
Davebo
Texmac
Ouch!
ppGaz
Your mother?
Perry Como
Flip-floppy McAmericaHater!
ppGaz
Best piece I’ve read in a while. Good work.
ppGaz
A defense that John Cole has used in regard to his own posts — because it’s a valid defense. That single fact makes hash out of Cole’s entire rant.
Slide
the “if you attack the administration you are hurting the troops” line is going over like a lead balloon. When large majorities of Americans think Bush intentionally misled us into war its kinda hard to point fingers a those that are pointing that out. I think most Americans find it far more disturbing to have a president that lied about something that has killed 2,000+ Americans than to have an opposition party outraged by those lies. Alas, the days of intimidating critics of the administration are long gone.
Wonderduck
Then you’re an idiot. And because you’re an idiot, I’ll say this in words you’ll understand:
Fascism bad. Mussolini-style fascists bad.
Come back when you grow up, Kimmitt.
Anderson
Well, John Cole will not be broken-hearted that I’ve lost a lot of respect for him, but his “update” is a sad thing.
Dumbasses like Reynolds think all they have to do is say “Silly Dems accuse Bush of lying” and they’ve won, because that is somehow self-evidently absurd, like wooden iron or something.
Well, it’s not. That’s been demonstrated six ways from Sunday. And if Cole continues to think that his imitating Reynolds’s theory of “repeating shit a dozen times makes it true somehow,” then this blog is on its way down. Very disappointing.
God knows I don’t expect Cole to quit being a Republican, but he could try to sound like a reasonable one. There are such people. Reynolds ain’t one of them.
Mike S
Thanks.
Slide
Its unpatriotic to call a patriot unpatriotic.
I’ll see your unpatriotic slur and raise you one.
John Cole
.
Can’t we just disagree?
ppGaz
Not even Stormy or Darrell could conjure up this twisted and tortured thought process.
Amazing.
The silver lining on this cloud of nonsense is that Bush himself, today, with his foolish and ill-advised speech, is going to put the nail into the coffin of this idea.
“The Democrats thought there were WMDs too!” Yeah, but you see, THERE WEREN’T ANY, you dumb shit!
“Now that the Democrats have seen that they were wrong, they are criticizing me and that is hurting the troops!”
No, YOU are hurting the troops with your ceaseless self-serving Don’t Blame Me bullshit, which is about a notch above the “Where are those doggone WMDs?” movie you made last year.
The people know that Bush can’t be trusted on this issue. Everything else that is said on this subject now just doesn’t matter. You’re watching the blog world try to position itself for the inevitable collapse of the Potatohead Vichy Government.
If you think this thread is ugly, you ain’t seen nothin yet, folks. Trust me.
joe mask
Steve S: White man speaks with fucked tongue.
Inspector Callahan: You’re arguing with BDS victims. Nothing you say will seep in. It’s pathological.
To all the aggrieved and wounded patriots: Some of us who supported the war never expected Saddam to lob “nukular” weapons at American cities nor cared if he had OBL over for dinner on Saturday nights.
But as a democrat I do care that congress and the senate are populated by people of my party who will authorize military action against another country and then two years later claim they really didn’t have the necessary intelligence to authorize it. The president may be mistaken but he has a whole lot of company.
Frankly, I expect my party leadership to do better. I don’t know whether Pelosi, Kerry and others are patriotic or not (and really don’t care) but I do know their judgement isn’t very trustworthy.
By the way, which of our most recent converts to the “unjustified war” cause are actually calling for a pullout right now? Would Kerry have the political courage to have done so by now if he were running the show?
ppGaz
Nobody cares. The nonexistent nukes were the crux of the marketing job these assholes did.
It’s not nice to piss on the legs of the people and tell the it’s raining, and they aren’t going to want to hear your rationalizing baloney later.
a guy called larry
Um, yeah. Remember also that we needed to “…tell the United Nations [remember them?-larry], and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something.”
And some congressmen believed him? How gallingly unpatriotic of them. If only they would have checked the crystal ball to see how opportunistic they were being, instead of diplomatic. Or patriotic.
John S.
At least Bush knows how to stay on message, right?
Davebo
Wow, imagine politicians wanting to cozy up with a fast growing majority of American voters.
What next?
ppGaz
Well, it worked for the Social Security town hall meetings.
I think he moved support for his “idea” from marginal to microscopic in just a matter of weeks. And that’s with the hand-picked audiences.
Synova
There’s nothing wrong with saying “we were right all along.”
There *is* something wrong with arguing a decision that was made years ago as though it can be unmade. It can’t be unmade. The things that need to be decided, and which a “loyal opposition” would be a good help with, are the decisions that need to be made today.
I find it highly disturbing that people who go on and on about 2,000+ American deaths seem to think that the *answer* is bring our troops home because they never should have been there, Iraqis be damned.
And that initial decision to go into Iraq… that’s the one we’re arguing, instead of what must be done *now*. We get proclamations of “puppet” governments rather than strong support to make sure that Iraq and Afghanistan don’t have puppet governments. Where the “opposition” has the opportunity to rally for true democracy in Iraq and social justice for the people, we get condemnations for going in the first place and what? Promises to pull out no matter how big a mess is left?
Or maybe those “patriotic” Dems who make public statements about “puppets” know very well that it isn’t true. Maybe they know that by promoting democracy and self-rule in the region they’d be jumping on the Republican band wagon… can’t have that!
Better to keep to this old argument and call for immediate withdrawl, no matter the circumstances, because we should never have gone at all. And, as we see, if the Iraqi people suffer… well, it’s ultimately up to them anyhow. Certainly, the results of our withdrawl are not our concern.
Is being right *that* important? I guess it is.
If the Dems want to abdicate all decision making on *todays* war issues… well, that’s their choice.
rilkefan
Ok, so on the off-chance that this wasn’t one of John‘s occasional odd off-the-wall fits, I went to one of those Glenn self-links against my better judgement and found him attacking the strawman claim:
I couldn’t force myself to read past that.
I also went to the JeffG link, which is a post on Bush’s standard Iraq speech; the entire content of the post is, “Finally he’s saying what I want! Hurrah!”
Glenn Reynolds isn’t worthy to wipe out John‘s trash can, odd fits and all.
John S.
I wonder who is trying to revise history here:
That Kerry. What an opportunistic and unpatriotic bastard trying to change things around after he voted for Bush to go to war.
ppGaz
No, Mister Strawman-R-Us, it can’t. But it can be accounted for. And that’s what is going on now. They are being held accountable.
And — ooh boy — they don’t like it.
As for “pulling out” — the last time I saw poll numbers, at least a plurality, if not a majority, had already come to that conclusion. The last one I saw included the tag line, “even if it meant a less favorable outcome for Iraq.”
The will of the American people to keep flogging this horse is waning rapidly.
But by all means the Bushmonkeys should just scold the people even more, I’m sure that will turn this train wreck around.
Synova
“The last one I saw included the tag line, “even if it meant a less favorable outcome for Iraq.””
And that doesn’t bother you?
ppGaz
It was entirely predictable. In fact, I predicted it three years ago. And it was inevitable, because of the dishonest way this was brought about. Because of the incompetant way the potatoheads went in there and managed the post-invasion period. Because of the foolish way they listened to a few sources who played them like violins.
“Bother” me? It bothered me three years ago. Where were you?
rilkefan
Note that John updates to cite Glenn’s backtracking to a position sufficiently sane to endorse. Typical GR – writes something ambiguous enough to both smear his opponents by sensible reading and to retreat to a clear but unsatisfying position after. And he still won’t come out and say by name who’s unpatriotic.
I also loved the link to “Bush’s Gettysburg Address”. Also the pathetic “The Democrats should stop cuisinarting us over how badly we screwed up the run-up to the war and start helping us defend our policies since we’re stuck.”
Neo
Wow ! Are all the posts on this site filled with so much anger ?
The postings here seem to reflect a microcosm much of the political debates, but I find most of the postings are really ignoring this or that detail that just doesn’t make your case, which I think was the original idea of the original posting.
I can tell you all are sure you are right, but first, take a deep breath. Please.
ppGaz
This is just about the gist of Bush’s sorry speech today.
It’s a loser’s appeal. It’s a plea to the homeboys to bail him out.
If this is the best he can do, I’d say his ability to govern is in its last throes.
Jane Finch
The Bush administration did lie, and it is not unpatriotic of politicians who voted for invasion based on the misinformation to now question the information they got.
MI
After a quick scan I don’t think anyone has posted this, sorry if I’m wrong. Kevin has updated his post http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2005_11/007543.php
For the record, I’m pretty much on board with what Lines said way up top, “I don’t see a difference between what Drum said and the longer outtake from Glenn.
Slide
there’s a lot to be angry about Neo. We’re in a disaster of a war with no easy solution. I am not one that thinks we can immediately pull out as I believe the consequences would be disastrous for US interests. But staying also has its negative consequences. A quagmire. And what makes a lot of us really angry is that it was all unnecessary. This was a war of choice. A bad choice. And what makes us really really really angry is that it now appears without question that the administration misled us all into this debacle.
2,000+ dead Americans
20,000 wounded Americans
Tens of thousands of dead Iraqis
Lost credibility around the world
lost prestige around the world
more terrorism
radicalized Islamic world
$200+ billion wasted
and no end in sight
and when some of us bring this up we are labeled as un-patriotic or that we dont’ support the troops.
angry? fuck yeah
ppGaz
There wasn’t any.
AlanDownunder
Any Americans who supported the Iraq invasion were functionally unpatriotic regardless of whether they were credulous, politic, complaisant, deluded, idiotic or malevolent. And if “functionally unpatriotic” doesn’t work for you, please explain how “subjectively patriotic” should work for me.
Mike S
Sorry, “no harm no foul” doesn’t apply here.
I used to think that we needed to stay until “we finished the job. I made that argument a few months back to some people with a lot of experiance in the ME, including one with Israeli govy experiance. After 4 hours I changed my mind. We can bring them home now or we can wait a few years. The only difference will be a hell of a lot more dead American soldiers.
I’ll do you one better. Let’s have a draft. Then maybe we can get enough troops in country to do the job right.
Oh, that’s right. We’ve always had the right number of troops according the brain trust in charge.
That’s just lame. I wish to God that I had been wrong all along. People like you seem to think that the fact that EVERY decision this administartion has made has been one fuck up after another is just water under the bridge.
It’s people like you that have allowed this admin to continue to fuck things up.
MI
I supported the invasion…I think more than anything I was simply ill-informed. I was one of those Americans who basically got their info from CNN and Fox News. I knew there were people against the war, but there will always be people against any war, I didn’t know at the time that there was a credible, sophisticated, articulate, informed and patriotic argument against invading.
I expected the whole nine yards, flowers at the feet, ect. The more it became obvious that what was happening was different than what we had been told would happen, the more I started expanding where I got my news and information from. The rest, as they say, is history.
carot
The Dems are just waking up to the fact that they were suckered in by Rove on bipartisanship. Bush initially tried to involve the Dems in a bipartisan policy and the Dems were suckered into this because because they missed being in power.
Bipartisanship like this though is bad for any minority party, they lose either way. If the policy is good the minority party’s support just makes them look like Republican Lite and they lose their base. Bush just moves further to the right, and drags the Dems with him until they stand for nothing on the left at all.
If the policy is bad then Bush just says the Dems agreed with him, and so they shouldn’t criticise. This is a variation of the excuse “Don’t vote for the Dems, they are as crazy as we are!”.
If the policy is average then people see no need to vote Dem because the Dems are so bipartisan anyway.
This is why no other minority party in the world gets suckered into this kind of bipartisanship. Now that the Dems have woken up to this they are often denying some of the bipartisanship they embraced in the past. This is a good thing in some ways though because they embraced bipartisanship for the wrong reasons, and not because they believed in those policies. The honest opposition policy is now being resurrected.
This has left the Republicans high and dry to some degree, because now they can’t point to their bad policies as bipartisan any more. Since the left didn’t want the bipartisanship in the first place they will quickly forgive the Dems.
The Republican base will not accept Bush’s excuses that his policies were bipartisan because they don’t like Dem policies and don’t want bipartisanship from them. So Bush is becoming more unpopular with his own base by trying to play the bipartisanship card.
Also Bush is out on a limb because his bipartisanship strategy led him into more extreme positions than he would have otherwise taken. He suckered the Dems into supporting the war, and they thought they were gaining by exploiting Congress needing to authorise it. If the bipartisanship had never worked then Bush might not have invaded Iraq at all.
The way out for the Dems is to show they were suckered into bipartisanship, which is why the intelligence on Iraq is so important. Bush at best is reduced to accusing the Dems of being as crooked as he is in response. Some Dems no doubt did want to go to war and overlooked intelligence that said otherwise, but they are in a better position now to deny that.
MI
btw, I think two things interestingly exist together. 1) I think the Bush admin deliberately twisted and mislead the American people. 2) I don’t think dems voted for the war because they were duped (even though technically speaking they were, along with the rest of us) I think they voted for it because they were spineless and terrified about what would happen if they didn’t. The fact that these guys mislead just, imo, gives dems something to hide behind.
Nelson Muntz
As, it is, though, Kevin appears to run in a crowd that is fond of calling the opposition liars at every opportunity, and it would be a refreshing and welcome change if Kevin himself would practice what he preaches and stop willfully distorting those he disagrees with. If, as Kevin alludes, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, a comple unwillingness to debate honestly and fairly has to be somewhere near the first.
Oh please, the left has been called all this and more and when it is demonstrably not true. Not only are we liars, but we are unpatriotic, and in fact we are traitors.
Attorney General John Ashcroft painted the defenders of civil liberties as anti-American fear-mongerers when he said : “To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our national unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America’s enemies and pause to America’s friends.”
Kevin never said patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, what he said was damn it, it is obscene for Reynolds and you to say that Democrats are not patriotic. As Thomas Jefferson (uh may have) said, Dissent is the highest form of patriotism. As FDR said, To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. –
Rethuglicans heal thyself.
carot
“As, it is, though, Kevin appears to run in a crowd that is fond of calling the opposition liars at every opportunity,..”
But they do lie at every opportunity. Can it be wrong to point that out? Also I doubt they are fond of the situation.
The problem is whenever any group of politicians have been in power for too long they get corrupted by the power. The Bushes have wielded power for decades hence they are the most corrupt. The only way for Republicans to fix this is not to elect any more Bush cronies.
But the Republicans have developed a counter to this, that their long experience in foreign affairs makes them indispensable. So this just means the corruption can’t be rooted out because it is supposed to be too valuable in other ways.
Bush’s message has always been “Apres moi le deluge”.
ppGaz
For every vote, a potential set of reasons. There weren’t two and only two distinct reasons.
More importantly, nobody voted “for war.” They voted to give the president authority to use force. The decision to use it was his alone. When the vote was taken, it was not clear that the force would be used.
Joint Resolution – text
One of the more amusing passages:
Ooops.
cfw
Mike:
“In some ways I agree with you. I disagree with people who say Bush lied because I think he believed that Iraq had WMD’s. However I disagree with you about acting in good faith.
My opinion is that he misled the country by ignoring/hiding the information that was contradictory to his claims.”
Remember the good faith standard is “white heart, stone head.” If he acted negligently with the evidence, but beleived what he said, that makes him quilty of mistake, as opposed to bad faith, yes?
Do we need to give reasonable room for Presidential advocacy, to allow a future president to motivate and steel the country for war? If we applied the “business judgment” rule, we might find a wrong Bush judgment but an honest mistake. Over-zealous advocacy, sure. Recklessness – maybe, I still need to hear more. Intentional misconduct – not there yet.
I am watching Josh (TPM) and his probing about forged papers. If Bush knew the relevant yellow cake documents were forged, from early in the game, not just suspected, I have a hard time saying he acted in good faith. But we are still a good distance away from knowing a) who forged, b) who knew, and c) when.
“If the country is going to debate the most important decision it can make then all facts should be on the table, not just the facts that support your claim.” Good point, in theory. Harder in practice, yes?
“I’m also somwhat sympathetic to your point about waiting until the troops are back home. The problem with that is that it doesn’t look like that will happen anytime even remotely soon although I hope I’m wrong.” We need to put ourselves in the shoes of those soldiers at risk in Iraq, yes?
“If I am right and the administration misled us into a war then they must be held to account.” True, and true.
“If for no other reason than to make sure that any future President’s administration is completely aware that they will be destroyed for doing this sort of thing again.” Does this overlook the interests of those in the field in Iraq? We who are safe at home need to tread lightly. I think Reid had it right in saying let’s talk in closed session.
JohnGalt
Well, unfortunately, as The Poor Man has said, we can’t unshit the bed.
Where I differ with you is that I don’t believe your assertion that the opposition has an opportunity to do anything at all. The Republicans control every branch of government. They have shut the Democratic party out of most every political instrument where an opposition party could be heard by the ruling party. They have slandered them through their talk-radio propogandists. They have sneered as they called them “liberals”, the toxin dripping off the words. They rejected every sensible amendment to bills that Democrats offered, such as exempting our troops from the bankruptcy bill while they were serving overseas.
What the hell makes you think that The Elephants would listen to the Dems’ ideas now?
In another vein, if I really want what I think is best for the country, why would I want the Democrats to bail out the Republicans rather than wait until next election when they might actually be able to create the policies to fix this horrible mess?
Every death incurred by the troops is a result of the administration’s decision to go to war. Too many have died for a fool’s errand, in my opinion. But if waiting for 12 months until the next election means reversing the horrible course this adminstration has set the country on, their deaths will not have been in vain.
But I digress. The Republicans have no interest in having the Democrats get involved in solving the problems with the prosecution of the War on Terror, the war on the deficit, the war on gay marriage, the war on drugs, the war on abortion, or any other war, unless the involvement consists of saying “Yes” to every bill the Republicans put forward. Given that the Republicans have a majority in both the Senate and the Congress, they shouldn’t even need that.
Man, I am so sad.
rilkefan
Note one source of disagreement above is probably the metonymy of “Bush” for “the Bush administration” or, as some of us like to préciser, “the Cheney administration”. I think “Bush lied”, where “Bush” refers to the human being, is inaccurate. He was misinformed and incapable (whether due to nature or lack of experience) of being responsible for his statements. “The administration showed gross disinterest in the truth in making its case and was as a direct result wrong” is accurate and adequately expressed _through the trope_ “Bush lied”.
p.lukasiak
2) I don’t think dems voted for the war because they were duped (even though technically speaking they were, along with the rest of us) I think they voted for it because they were spineless and terrified about what would happen if they didn’t.
The problem with the “spineless” theory is that its also true that many of the Democrats who voted for the war would have suffered consequences in the elections held a month later. Once Gephardt caved, there was no way the Dems could stop the resolution from passing, and voting against it would simply have been a stand “on principle” that had serious political consequences.
TallDave
Is Jimmy Massey unpatriotic?
What the Dems are doing isn’t much different.
rilkefan
By the way: “weapons of mass destruction-related program activities”.
ppGaz
Getting a little desperate there, TallDave?
I just watched you become SmallDave right before my eyes.
Even for you, that was pathetic.
Party’s over, Dave. You are now the guy taking pictures on the deck of the Titanic.
ppGaz
You done yer book learnin. But down there in Texas, this whole thing is described this way:
Bubba, we fucked up.
Jcricket
I’m with DougJ on this one. I was in favor of the war in Afghanistan (still am, wish we had more troops there), and was originally wishy-washy on Iraq. After being convinced by Colin Powell’s presentation and largely because I feared Saddam raining down nukes (or whatever) on Israel and igniting a massive middle-east war, I supported the war in Iraq. Sure, that may not be the world’s best rationale, but I was comfortable with it.
When it became clear that Iraq had no WMD, I still supported the war, because I naively believed we’d get to the “flowering of Democracy in Iraq” without too much effort (ha!). OK, so we didn’t find the chemical weapons, but we got rid of a brutal dictator. Sounds like a win to me. That didn’t happen. But that alone wouldn’t make me call the Iraq war a mistake.
It’s the conclusive clear evidence that none of what was presented to me as justification that Saddam was an imminent threat was as it seemed. Fine, Bush himself didn’t lie in the sense that he believed what he was saying was false. But, in every other operative sense of the word lie, he’s guilty. Misleading, over-stating, hiding contradictory evidence, ignoring obvious red flags with the people The Bush administration fit the evidence around their desired, pre-determined outcome, which is an awful thing to do when committing us to a course of war. And his rhetoric at the time does not fit with the reality of how the war was justified.
Combine this with all we’ve learned about the WH’s penchant for lying about nearly everything else they do (see Plame, Medicare drug bill costs, cronyism, torture, etc.) and it cements my belief that there was no imminent threat. Thus we didn’t need to spend $300 billion dollars, 2,000+ American lives and 10,000+ Iraqi lives taking Saddam out now. There are plenty of other places we could intervene (Darfur, more troops in Afghanistan, etc.) or perhaps we could use that money on something else (homeland security?). Plenty of other unstable regimes (North Korea, Iran) and even some allies (Pakistan, Saudi Arabia) we should be spending our money preparing a defense against. We don’t have unlimited money or an unlimited number of troops.
Yes, it’s more complicated than that. We can’t cut and run now that Bush has screwed everything up. But to claim that Bush has been on the up-and-up is just ludicrous. To claim he has a handle on the situation and is moving us towards victory belies the evidence. This administration shows no ability to take a rational look at its own actions and ask the Dr. Phil question, “How’s that working for us?”
Putting it simply, it’s like being told you’re getting a brand new car and finding out it’s a re-furb that’s been in an accident and had the odometer rolled back. It’s completely within bounds to say, “I’m giving this car back to you. What you sold me is not what I got”. But you say, “it’s better than no car? How will you live without a car? I didn’t know the car’s odometer had been rolled back (even though I got it from my cousin who’s been arrested 5 times for auto theft). And besides, you can’t give it back to me, I cashed your check.”
You can change your mind about something if the reasons you believed in it turn out to be bogus. That’s what being a rational human being is supposed to look like.
Let’s take our gracious host, for example. John Cole had an epiphany when the Terri Schiavo mess happened. He said, “I think I’m a Republican, but I’m not one of those people. Perhaps I need to think about this some more.” Should Randall Terry get to say, “Nope, Sorry John, you supported Ronald Reagan, so you have to be with me now?”
kl
Yeah, they didn’t think he’d actually USE it!
John S.
Well, Randall Terry could ask that of John, but seeing as how he was probably all of 9 when Reagan took office, I doubt the premise is entirely plausible.
rilkefan
“You done yer book learnin.”
Damn, irritation at John must push my academic-snottiness button. If Glenn Reynolds wrote worth a spit or had the courage to try to clearly state and defend his claims, I’d be drinking bourbon and reading Michael Swanwick now instead of engaging in the two hundredth repetition of this stupid argument.
DougJ
Why does it matter whether or not the Democrats in congress were duped by Bush or wanted to go to war just as much as Bush did or are America hating traitors or whatever? I mean, what does that have to do with whether or not *the Bush administration lied to the American people* about their reasons for going to war. I’m not a Democrat or a senator and I feel duped. I blame myself and the New York Times mostly, but frankly I’d like to know more about the possible manipulation of pre-war intelligence.
But then again, I’m an America-hating Saddam-lover.
DougJ
Maybe I shouldn’t push my luck but I think that whoever uses the word “meme” first also loses the argument.
Mike
“ppGaz Says:
Actually, a lot of people care, not about what I think, but about the general tone of this commentary. And John must realize by now that the number of people who are going to support him on this subject is down to approximately Stormy, Rick, Darrell, you and a couple other people who haven’t had an original idea in the time I’ve been here. ”
Yeah, “Bush sucks” is a real original idea.
Sheesh what a pompous clown.
Cyrus
Wow, more than 220 comments here and 240 at Kevin’s. But unfortunately there’s no way in hell I could read all those just to be certain of the already pretty good chance that no one else has brought up this point, so…
Well, no, it’s not wholly appropriate to call unpatriotic those individuals who change their opinions simply for political reasons. It really isn’t. Instead of “unpatriotic,” there are already two precise, accurate and simple words carrying much less emotional weight for “individuals who change their opinions simply for political reasons.” Though their meanings are far from identical, they are both much closer to the above definition than “unpatriotic” (which shows just how very inappropriate “unpatriotic” is.) Those words are “politician,” and “coward.”
Calling such people politicians or cowards admits that the problem is more or less a constant of human nature and/or our culture, but calling them unpatriotic implies that they are the exceptions, misfits, irrationally biased against the country.
And the terms “politician” and “coward” are obviously emotionally loaded, but not to the same degree as the term “unpatriotic,” so it’s much easier to get past that emotional reaction and consider whether they’re accurate (frex, could Congressman X’s change in position have been a genuine reflection of his beliefs then versus now), which is much harder to do when the term “unpatriotic” is used. That’s even more true because it’s vague and not well explained in this case.
And it’s just not supported by the facts. In a comment I saw as I skimmed down, someone said something like “today’s environment is much more friendly to changes of heart, but that by itself doesn’t mean they aren’t genuine.” Reynolds says Congressmen who previously supported the war but now don’t are unpatriotic, and he makes the assumption that it’s entirely for political reasons – has he talked to all of them? Can he read minds? Is he counting that half-dozen or so of Republicans who were all popular a few months ago for criticizing the conduct of the war? Simply put, is he basing it on anything other than a belief that Democrats are hate America until they’ve proven the contrary?
So… am I just quibbling over language? Well, if you want to see it like that, sure. But when people around here were just quibbling over the phrase “gulag archipelago,” Tim admitted it was imprecise and unnecessarily emotionally charged and retracted it. Reynolds stands by it. That is at best unwillingness to admit he was wrong in his choice of language (of course, he’s just following precedent there.) If not that, then it’s either deliberately dishonest or he really believes that it is necessarily unpatriotic to change your mind about the war. Um, huh?
Mike
“Retief Says:
Now a majority of Americans have concluded that Bush lied to get us into Iraq. (Oddly enough, they believe their own eyes rather than the “what mushroom cloud” protestations of folks like Glenn.) ”
And they are wrong as cited by Norman Podhoretz. (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/Production/files/podhoretz1205advance.html).
This article shows who’s really lying, those would be the ones that are saying Bush lied. Some of them on this very site. The campaign has certainly been effectiive though, I’ll give you that, as can be shown in the poll numbers.
Mike S
A mistake is leaving the cap off of the tooth paste. Intentionally leaving out information contrary to your position, while claiming that the information you are giving is absolutely true, is bad faith.
If a prosecutor has exculpatory information about a defendant and hides it he has breached his duty to the law. This is no different.
Sending people to kill and be killed is not “business judgement.” “Over zealous advocacy” is not a term I would use in this instance. I’m a salesman and it is my duty to show all of what I am selling, both the good and the bad. Disclosure is the law for me. If I say that a house is in perfect shape, the ground beneath it is solid and I have a report to prove it while hiding another report that states the ground is moving, I am guilty of breaking both my ethical agreements and the law. It does not matter if I have 4 reports saying it’s fine and 1 that says it is not. I have to disclose all of the reports.
Shouldn’t that be the standard when taking a country to war?
This is a tough call but again I think it is important for the country as a whole that the truth will out and the people responsible be held to account. It is important that future Presidents know that they will be held to account.
The soldiers over there know that the people support them even though they are not supporting the war. They are not coming home to charges of “baby killer” or anything else along those lines. The only people claiming that is happening are the worthless pieces of shit like Hannity, Big Pharma and the little TellDave bitches of the world. It makes the little girls feel all tough when they make those claims. They are the ones that make soldiers believe that they have no support. But they have to do it by being lying little girls.
Ask yourself why little Sean had to claim that a leftist group was protesting a funeral for a soldier because of “social issues.” That “leftist group” was The Westboro Baptist Church and the “social issue” was that “God Hates Fags.” Little Sean had to lie because the truth is that the people support the troops so he couldn’t find anything real to cite.
So if anyone can be accused of hurting the troops it’s idiots like the people I mentioned above.
None of this is easy, no matter what either side says. But it is the most important issue facing us today. It’s our obligation as a country to get to the bottom of it.
Mike S
That article was a joke. He cherry picked certain points in time and left out relavent information like the whole beginning of 2003. Here’s Kevin Drum.
Douglas
Glenn didn’t tag a single person as unpatriotic! He was speaking in the conceptual. He was speaking broadly giving those people who are HAPPY to tag those they oppose as un-patriotic to open their mouths. And clearly. They have.
All of those who have made direct accusations, are on the left. Now I suggest they push for impeachment of the pres, and all of the representatives and senators they think have acted counter to the interests of the US, by. . . NOT denigrating the troops, by NOT trying to emmasculate the President, by NOT pouring out highly classified information for the purposes of harming the “other side.” Ironic that an argument in the negative, is so affirming.
Steve S
Whether or not Glenn meant what he said, or said what he meant. The fact of the matter is, he’s still wrong.
Steve S
Why is that disturbing?
This is what I don’t get about modern day self-proclaimed conservatives. They’re not conservative. They’re some kind of conglomeration of the worst of conservative bullshit, and the worst of bleeding heart liberalism.
They whine endlessly at home about welfare and how it creates a condition of dependence upon the state. And then they tell us, we can’t let the Iraqis stand up for themselves because they’re not ready.
I’m sorry, but no. The only way to solve the stability problems in Iraq is for the Iraqis to stand up for themselves and demand stability. And they will only do this when they realize that the only people who are going to help them are themselves.
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
Monty
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!
In other words, RUN with our tails between our legs. You wonder why I don’t want someone like you in charge of the country’s security?
Once we reached the German border, you would have told Britain and France, “We’ve done our part. Now stand on your own.” No, you probably wouldn’t have wanted to get involved in the first place.
You don’t start a mission unless you intend to finish it. In case you don’t understand this, it means you realize all your objectives and are VICTORIOUS! You don’t tell our soldiers that this was all a big game and we are tired and bored and going home. You don’t tell the Iraqis we weren’t really serious about helping them become self-sufficient and giving them the opportunity to create a democratic state. And, most important, if you’re not listening, you don’t tell our enemies that we don’t have the guts to stay the course.
kl
I wasn’t convinced until you used boldface caps with an exclamation point. Then it all came together.
Slide
Great Washington Post article this morning that debunks two right wing lies that Bush disgustingly included in his Veterans’s Day speech.
1) Dems had exactly the same intelligence as the President
2) that everyone that has looked at the issue has concluded that the President did not manipulate intelligence
Shows you how desperate the President is if the major contentions of his comeback speech are so easily refuted the next day.
Quilly Mammoth
The problem with the whole “Bush Lied” meme is that not only is it being used as a shield for some Democrats that voted for the war before they spoke against it, but all it does is attack the credibility of Bush without addressing the issue. Which is: Now they we _are_ there what do we do to win?
Politicians can then appeal to voters that their vote for a now unpopular war was because they were dumber than Chimpy the world’s dumbest dictator without actually taking a stand on what to do next.
It may not be unpatriotic,though I think it is, but it surely_is_ moral cowardice.
QM
Slide
Can I suggest that there is more than one issue? Sure, finding a solution to this mess that Bush and the neocons get us into is not being addressed by exploring the Bush “lied” meme as you like to call it but that doesn’t make it any less important to thoroughly investigate.
Going to war is a very serious thing with explosive consequences both short term and long term. The American public has every right in the world to know that those decisons were made properly and honestly. I know Bush supporters would like to all say its “water under the bridge” but its not. We hear rumblings of Iran’s nuclear capability. Can we belive them? Is the adminstration doing the same thing? Is Syria REALLY assisting the insurgents? Do we have the right to take military action against them?
The credibility of the United States is very important and if the rest of the world sees us putting our heads in the sand and not exploring whether we were all lied to in the runnup to the war then we will have lost any hope of regaining the worlds trust. Again, those on the right that don’t care about the international community will most assuredly say, “Who cares?”. Well, if indeed we are fighting a “global” war on terror, I think it might come in handy if we were believed and trusted in the world. We can’t do this alone and it is unlikely that any other country would align themselves with the USA at this point.
'eathen
Every permanent member of the UN Security Council (including France and Germany) agreed that Saddam had failed — in miserable fashion — fully and openly divest himself of WMDs as required by the UN (not the US). Read resolution 1441.
Did Bush lie to the American people when he articulated a position (that Saddam had and was pursuing WMDs) also held by France and Germany?
Did Bush lie to Congress when the CIA (headed by George Tenet, a Clinton appointee) provided Members and Senators with classified briefings on Iraq?
If Bush lied to the American people so he could invade Iraq, then Chirac and Schroeder were in on it too.
Opposing a war in concept or execution is not unpatriotic. Using issues surrounding a war to advance an unrelated domestic political agenda is unpatriotic.
ppGaz
I feel your pain.
But the argument is worthwhile. It’s a miniature version of the much larger one the country has been having with itself. And it’s headed in a good direction. Bush is toast. He is suffering the fate reserved for foolish, arrogant, stubborn American politicians who get a lot of power and suddenly think they are kings.
One thing all Americans eventually agree on is that we don’t need a damned king. No offense to any Brits who are tuned in this morning.
And thanks to you, I was moved to look this up; made me chuckle right into my cappuccino:
ppGaz
Not original.
I’ve been called both pompous, and a clown, before.
Get a thesauraus.
I prefer to be called a Nattering Nabob.
(Psst: Your lying POS president is going down).
ppGaz
This is my gift, today, to the Bushmonkeys who have toiled so long and so hard to prop up their little man.
I can’t write the current state of affairs better than Eleanor Clift has done in Newsweek:
[ edited for brevity ]
The fat lady is clearing her throat, kids.
Your new mascot is the Aflac duck. Isn’t the little president even starting to sound like Gilbert Gottfried?
cfw
Mike S:
“This is a tough call but again I think it is important for the country as a whole that the truth will out and the people responsible be held to account.”
True, but we must consider timing and discretion. Democrats need to show that they “get” national security. Attacking Bush is attacking the Commander in Chief. Who wants to serve under a CinC who is constantly molested in public at home by Senators, Judges, etc.? Would you not prefer to serve under Reagan in 81-85 (when I served)? Sure.
Soccer moms and dads feuding with each other and the coach about the skills (or lack thereof) of the coach during the season are bound to have a negative impact on the team, yes? I have no objection to closed door investigations, with subpoenas as needed. If Reid goes much beyond that, he plays into the hands of Rove, et al, yes?
“It is important that future Presidents know that they will be held to account.”
Does this make the Blue Staters look a bit too idealistic, perhaps uncaring with respect to troops now at risk?
“The soldiers over there know that the people support them even though they are not supporting the war.”
US needs to show this daily. I would not assume the morale stays unchanged regardless of events at home.
“They are not coming home to charges of “baby killer” or anything else along those lines.”
Torturer? Abusive interrogator? Liar? Deceiver? Critique of Bush equals critique of the Bush team, down to the lowest private. If not rationally, emotionally.
“They are the ones that make soldiers believe that they have no support.”
Soldiers are not fools. Like children, they can tell emotionally and from an esprit perspective when things change for the better (or the worse) for their commanders up the chain of command.
I agree Sean is a hack, but I turn him off so I cannot give much detail.
“So if anyone can be accused of hurting the troops it’s idiots like the people I mentioned above.”
The Blue Staters still need to tread lightly until the troops get to come home, eh?
“None of this is easy, no matter what either side says. But it is the most important issue facing us today. It’s our obligation as a country to get to the bottom of it.”
The most important issue for troops is winning and getting home safe, yes? Dems can and should make that thir priority. Making a record about alleged bad faith before the war started would be a first priority if we had all troops home and safe now, but we do not. Hence, Reid seems to have hit the right note in closing doors and trying to jump start a discrete “who blew it” or “who lied” study.
ppGaz
It’s the right wingers who need to show this daily. Their bogus claims that dissent is “hurting the troops” is crap, and it hurts the troops.
The biggest thumb in the eye of the troops was by GW Bush yesterday in his lying, pathetic loser speech. First he lies about the run up to war. Then he lies about dissent. Dissent is what we’re fighting for. Any politician who speaks against dissent should be fired on the spot. If you aren’t for dissent, go live in another country.
Jcricket
Chill, dude. This is a good precedent, historically. When the President’s major speeches are nothing but attacks against war critics, he’s got nowhere to go but down. More negativity won’t help him win the American public back, and he can’t return to the positive vision since he’s lost the people’s trust and events (most of his own creation) have turned against him. Combined with an inability to jettison the various alabtross’ around his neck (Rove, Libby, Rumsfeld, Delay, etc.) and we’ve got a bad year ahead for the GOP.
More hilariously, I thought heard his speech before
Jcricket
ppgaz – don’t forget the meirs nomination, SS, medicare drug bill debacle, and now possibly Alito’s nomination (right-wing endorsements still not a sure-thing, and possibly conflict-of-interest/lying to the Senate issues).
40% wasn’t his floor. 35% won’t be his floor.
Wonderduck
Got some problem with ducks, mister?
Pb
Slide,
Was it Pat Buchanan? I remember how he turned into a harsh critic of Bush before the election — Buchanan criticized him on the war, criticized him on spending, and then… endorsed him anyhow. It was really pathetic.
ppGaz
They’re good eatin’!
Otto Man
Worked for Reagan in Lebanon. Or does the running away part only work if you also sell arms to other terrorists, too?
Otto Man
First of all, the United States military is not “Bush’s team.” This isn’t the palace guard, for Christ’s sake.
And we’ve already seen that there’s no connection between the lowest privates in Abu Ghraib and their commanders and commander-in-chief. If blame doesn’t move up the chain of command, then how is it supposed to move down?
Mike S
Who wants to serve under a cic that has gotten everything wrong a every turn, who has been completely dishonest and who has refused to hold anyone accountable for every fiasco by firning them? Unless you think the Medal of Freedon is holding someone accountable.
Not just blue staters.
We are the ones calling for the people making the policy to be held to account. It’s the administartion and it’s supporters saying that it is the troops themselves who are “the bad apples.”
We’ve been calling for a change while the admin has said “stay the course.” The admin says things like “we’re turning the corner” or “they’re in the last throws” when the soldiers on the ground see what is really happenning.
You make some valid points and have a perspective that I do not. I’ve never served but my many friends that have are devided on this as well. “Treading lightly” is good advice.
Steve S
What would those objectives be again?
Yeah, that’s what I thought. You disingenuous chamber pot.
Steve S
That’s the problem with the whole “People complaining about the war are unpatriotic scoundrels” crowd to.
I’ve yet to see anything suggesting a strategy, much less qualified objectives from the Bush Administration. So how can we ever possibly win if we ain’t got any knowledge of what the fuck we are doing over there?
Your status quo is no answer.
Steve S
France and Germany didn’t vote to go to war.
Excuses… excuses… whine whine whine.
ppGaz
Eisenhower, too. Weren’t his Marines in Lebanon for only 100 days, yet long enough to get the job done, and with only one casualty?
Maybe Bush learned his war strategies while he “flew fighter jets in Alabama, and enjoyed it.”
(Bush’s desription to Tim Russert).
Slide
ppGaz:
bingo. It was a very hard hitting column.
kl
But enough about your mom!
Greg D
Why do you call it “pandering” John, when it can be argued that they have come to their conclusion honestly?
Because their position can’t be honestly argued.
There is zero evidence that Bush didn’t believe what he was saying. There is zero evidence that anyone knew that Saddam was bluffing. There is zero evidence that Bush argued the threat was “imminent”, and a lot of eveidence that he said it wasn’t imminent, and that the plan was to attack before the threat became imminent.
There is zero evidence that the only reason to go to war was WMDs, there is a good deal of evidence that Bush gave other, still valid, reasons for attacking (as in, go read his speaches from before we attacked, and don’t cherry pick your quotes). It is true that Bush spent a lot of time on the WMDs. There are two reason for that:
1: He was trying to work with teh “international community” (big mistake on his part), and Saddam’s defiance of the UN should have been important to them (unfortunately, Saddam’s bribes, and general anti-Americanism, made it less important).
2: We needed the Saudis to not actively interfere with the attack. Rubbing their noses in the fact that we thought that Middle East dictatorships (like their government) were a huge threat to us, and so we were attacking Iraq to start the process of ending the dictatorships, would have been, um, “undiplomatic”.
That’s why Glenn, John, and Bush are right, and you all are wrong.
Greg
Anderson
Sure we can. Unless one of us is going to call the other “unpatriotic,” or approvingly quote bastards who do so.
And I’m not really interested in parsing Reynolds like he’s the Holy Gospel. He’s a lawyer, and he knows perfectly well how to smear people while keeping his literal meaning too vague to draw Rule 11 sanctions.
Wonderduck
…forgetting to mention that Buchanan was one of the original Idiotarians…
Collin
I understand the need of people like Glenn and John to go out of their way to provide context for what they say. At some point however you just have to write people off as delusional and/or biased to the point that no argument or point of fact will make a difference.
For the trolls that found their way over here from Kevin’s site, this applies to you.
The first problem with you people is you can’t see the forest for the tress. It wasn’t all about WMD’s for this administration. There were other goals that they made explicitly clear. You people are just to retarded to read I guess. Reforming the middle east and ending the schlerotic tyranies that export disaffected terrorist scum has always been the primary reason.
The only reason WMD’s were brought up at all was because Tony Blair asked Bush to try to involve the UN. The UN doesn’t give a rat’s ass about US security, it in fact has been antithetical to it, but that is a side issue. The unfortunate truth is that the UN only acted at all because it made resolutions after the first gulf war and had to at least try to be a lawful world body. This of course failed, many UN members did not support the war, and now we find out that those UN members were all being payed off in the Oil For Food program. The only difference between the French, Russian, and German opposition and the internal US opposition represented by Drum and his trolls is that the trolls and Drum are willing to undermine US security for free.
And for the sake of irony I am going to point out the the current canard coming from the unpatriotic left is that Bush got some super secret intel that showed there were no WMD’s and that he ignored information that didn’t support his goals, but these same people are ignoring information coming out of Iraq that points to progress there. I thought tere was supposed to be a Sadr led civil war? What about those Sunni’s? I know you guys are just as happy as I am to see they are VOTING in ELECTIONS. Did I mention that the women in Iraq get to vote too? Why does it seem that you guys ignore these things?
The troops in Iraq that you guys try to advocate for are telling you guys to piss off and let them finish their jobs and their morale is high about Iraq. But the troops tell us they are worried about something. They are worried the people back home wont support their mission to the end. The problem is I think you guys are aware of the progress being made. And it doesn’t bode well for destroying the hated Bushchimphitler. It becomes apparent what is more important to you.
Irina
generic meridia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/meridia/generic_meridia.html]generic meridia[/url]
meridia online , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/meridia/meridia_online.html]meridia online[/url]
meridia weight loss , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/meridia/meridia_weight_loss.html]meridia weight loss[/url]
information paxil , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/paxil/information_paxil.html]information paxil[/url]
meridia side effects , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/meridia/meridia_side_effects.html]meridia side effects[/url]
cheap propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/cheap_propecia.html]cheap propecia[/url]
cheap propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/cheap_propecia.html]cheap propecia[/url]
prozac weight gain , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/prozac_weight_gain.html]prozac weight gain[/url]
propecia online , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/propecia_online.html]propecia online[/url]
paxil , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/paxil/paxil.html]paxil[/url]
withdrawal xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/withdrawal_xanax.html]withdrawal xanax[/url]
effects side xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/effects_side_xanax.html]effects side xanax[/url]
finasteride propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/finasteride_propecia.html]finasteride propecia[/url]
buy paxil , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/paxil/buy_paxil.html]buy paxil[/url]
fluoxetine prozac , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/fluoxetine_prozac.html]fluoxetine prozac[/url]
effects side xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/effects_side_xanax.html]effects side xanax[/url]
buy prozac , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/buy_prozac.html]buy prozac[/url]
prozac weight gain , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/prozac_weight_gain.html]prozac weight gain[/url]
withdrawal xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/withdrawal_xanax.html]withdrawal xanax[/url]
effects side xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/effects_side_xanax.html]effects side xanax[/url]
online paxil , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/paxil/online_paxil.html]online paxil[/url]
prozac , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/prozac.html]prozac[/url]
online pharmacy xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/online_pharmacy_xanax.html]online pharmacy xanax[/url]
online paxil , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/paxil/online_paxil.html]online paxil[/url]
prozac and pregnancy , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/prozac_and_pregnancy.html]prozac and pregnancy[/url]
cheap propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/cheap_propecia.html]cheap propecia[/url]
valium xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/valium_xanax.html]valium xanax[/url]
paxil , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/paxil/paxil.html]paxil[/url]
prescription xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/prescription_xanax.html]prescription xanax[/url]
prozac weight gain , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/prozac_weight_gain.html]prozac weight gain[/url]
propecia prescription , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/propecia_prescription.html]propecia prescription[/url]
buy meridia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/meridia/buy_meridia.html]buy meridia[/url]
prozac , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/prozac.html]prozac[/url]
propecia pill , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/propecia_pill.html]propecia pill[/url]
generic propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/generic_propecia.html]generic propecia[/url]
order xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/order_xanax.html]order xanax[/url]
xanax valium , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/xanax_valium.html]xanax valium[/url]
effects side xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/effects_side_xanax.html]effects side xanax[/url]
cheap propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/cheap_propecia.html]cheap propecia[/url]
propecia pill , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/propecia_pill.html]propecia pill[/url]
meridia side effects , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/meridia/meridia_side_effects.html]meridia side effects[/url]
propecia side effects , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/propecia_side_effects.html]propecia side effects[/url]
loss propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/loss_propecia.html]loss propecia[/url]
prozac drug , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/prozac_drug.html]prozac drug[/url]
prozac nation , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/prozac/prozac_nation.html]prozac nation[/url]
generic meridia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/meridia/generic_meridia.html]generic meridia[/url]
propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/propecia.html]propecia[/url]
effects paxil side , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/paxil/effects_paxil_side.html]effects paxil side[/url]
buy xanax , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/xanax/buy_xanax.html]buy xanax[/url]
loss propecia , [url=http://1rx.sitesfree.com/propecia/loss_propecia.html]loss propecia[/url]