Armando has one of his amusing little rants posted (if opposition like Armando did not exist, Karl Rove would have to make them up), taking great umbrage at the following WaPo editorial:
What Lieberman doesn’t say is that many Democrats would view such an outcome as an advantage. Their focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush’s war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategy — to satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.
Many of them understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States as well as for Mahdi and his countrymen. But the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.
Armando goes volcanic, once again livid that his ‘patriotism’ is being quesioned:
You no good SOB Hiatt. You have been irresponsible, grossly negligent, ingenuous and a Bush lackey on Iraq for 4 years now and you have the gall to write those words. You despicable McCarthyite cretin.
We’re not supposed to say this anymore – but eff you. How dare you question the patriotism of people who are doing what YOU have failed to do – hold the Bush Administration to account? How dare you?
This is the same old tired crap from the 2004 campaign all over again, when John Kerry (Did you know he served in Vietnam?) and his supporters were allowed to say ANYTHING, and if anyone merely inquired about Kerry’s position or experiences, why, we were McCarthyites “questioning a war hero’s patriotism.”
Bush was a chickenhawk, Bush was held hostage by the pro-Israel lobby, Bush lied us into war, Bush was taking us to war only for oil or his corporate buddies, Bush was AWOL, on and on and on the charges went, but if anyone asked to see Kerry’s military record after he made it the focal point of the campaign, they were accused of “questioning his patriotism.” In short, we were supposed to simply accept whatever Kerry asserted, anything else was ‘questioning his patriotism. I think the Democrats have their historical figures confused, because what they are describing is Orwellian, not McCarthyism.
Truth be told, there probably were some people who were questioning Kerry’s patriotism- I am sure some of the Swift Vets were, some of the more strident members of the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio were, and I am sure the Free Republic had a less than nuanced stance. But the vast majority of the opposition was not, is not, and will not engage in that sort of behavior. I even defended Kerry from some of the more ham-handed and lame attempts to smear him, and continue to this day to think Kerry is a legitimate American hero for his service to this country.
In fact, if the Democrats want to look at one of the nastier attacks on Kerry, they should start former their famous circular firing squad, because it was one of their own who first took things into the gutter:
Clark, who didn’t compete in Iowa, told campaign workers in Manchester, N.H., that Kerry, a decorated former Navy officer, had a military background “but nobody in this race has got the kind of background I’ve got.”
“It’s one thing to be a hero as a junior officer. He’s done that, I respect that,” Clark said. “But I’ve got the military experience at the top as well as at the bottom.”
At any rate, back to the WaPo editorial. Is there any basis to the assertion that some Democrats are playing politics with the Iraq war and have let their desire to weaken the President blind them to the importance of victoy in Iraq? Let’s take Senator X and see if that is a fair and accurate assessment of his or her behavior.
Senator X is on the Senate Intelligence Committee, a co-chairman, in fact, and as such is privvy to a great deal of information. Prior to the Iraq War, he stated the following about Saddam Hussein:
“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources — something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”
I am forced to conclude, on all the evidence, that Saddam poses a significant risk.
Some argue it would be totally irrational for Saddam Hussein to initiate an attack against the mainland United States, and they believe he would not do it. But if Saddam thought he could attack America through terrorist proxies and cover the trail back to Baghdad, he might not think it so irrational.
Furthermore, as we noted, this Senator took advantage of the information that was made available to all Senators (and not utilized):
WALLACE: Now, by that point, Senator, you had read the National Intelligence Estimate, correct?
SEN. X: In fact, there were only six people in the Senate who did, and I was one of them. I’m sure Pat was another.
…
WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam’s nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.
This Senator was one of six Senators who read the National Intelligence Estimate, and thus has no excuse to claim he ‘did not have all the intelligence.’
Additionally, this Senator’s staff secretly authored a memo detailing how the Democrats could maximize political gain by launching partisan attacks on the President:
We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows:
1) Pull the majority along as far as we can on issues that may lead to major new disclosures regarding improper or questionable conduct by administration officials. We are having some success in that regard.
For example, in addition to the President’s State of the Union speech, the chairman [Sen. Pat Roberts] has agreed to look at the activities of the office of the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, as well as Secretary Bolton’s office at the State Department.
The fact that the chairman supports our investigations into these offices and cosigns our requests for information is helpful and potentially crucial. We don’t know what we will find but our prospects for getting the access we seek is far greater when we have the backing of the majority. [We can verbally mention some of the intriguing leads we are pursuing.]
2) Assiduously prepare Democratic ‘additional views’ to attach to any interim or final reports the committee may release. Committee rules provide this opportunity and we intend to take full advantage of it.
In that regard we may have already compiled all the public statements on Iraq made by senior administration officials. We will identify the most exaggerated claims. We will contrast them with the intelligence estimates that have since been declassified. Our additional views will also, among other things, castigate the majority for seeking to limit the scope of the inquiry.
The Democrats will then be in a strong position to reopen the question of establishing an Independent Commission [i.e., the Corzine Amendment.]
3) Prepare to launch an independent investigation when it becomes clear we have exhausted the opportunity to usefully collaborate with the majority. We can pull the trigger on an independent investigation of the administration’s use of intelligence at any time. But we can only do so once.
The best time to do so will probably be next year, either:
A) After we have already released our additional views on an interim report, thereby providing as many as three opportunities to make our case to the public. Additional views on the interim report (1). The announcement of our independent investigation (2). And (3) additional views on the final investigation. Or:
B) Once we identify solid leads the majority does not want to pursue, we would attract more coverage and have greater credibility in that context than one in which we simply launch an independent investigation based on principled but vague notions regarding the use of intelligence.
In the meantime, even without a specifically authorized independent investigation, we continue to act independently when we encounter footdragging on the part of the majority. For example, the FBI Niger investigation was done solely at the request of the vice chairman. We have independently submitted written requests to the DOD and we are preparing further independent requests for information.
SUMMARY: Intelligence issues are clearly secondary to the public’s concern regarding the insurgency in Iraq. Yet we have an important role to play in revealing the misleading, if not flagrantly dishonest, methods and motives of senior administration officials who made the case for unilateral preemptive war.
The approach outlined above seems to offer the best prospect for exposing the administration’s dubious motives.
Additionally, this Senator, prior to any invasion (or even any vote to authorize invasion), was, by his own admission, travelling secretly around the globe attempting to undermine our foreign policy efforts:
I took a trip by myself in January of 2002 to Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Syria, and I told each of the heads of state that it was my view that George Bush had already made up his mind to go to war against Iraq – that that was a predetermined set course which had taken shape shortly after 9/11.
Additionally, this Senator, who had access to the intel, who understood better than others what was at stake and what was really going on, chose to authorize the use of military force. Does he shoulder any burden for this ‘rush to war?’ Of course not:
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?
SEN. X: No.
WALLACE: You’re not?
SEN. X: No. I’m responsible for my vote, but I’d appreciate it if you’d get serious about this subject, with all due respect.
Now, what is it that Armando is upset about? The WaPo stating that “the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding.”
Why on earth would the Washington Post editorial staff come to that conclusion?
rilkefan
Armando certainly has an anger problem rivalling that of someone I could mention, and his behavior in comments is shameful, but I think he’s got a good case here. Democrats desiring to hurt Bush and some of his policies are doing so in the best interest of our country. What do you want them to say – we think you’re wrong, thanks for distorting the intelligence and giving us late access to hastily slapped-together slanted intel and keeping it classified so we couldn’t even talk about the parts that supported us, good luck in all your endeavours and we’ll see you on election day?
KC
Man, this squabble’s just too damn hot for me to enter.
Lines
I know we are all tired of repeated questions, but what does a victory in Iraq look like? When will we know if we are victorious? Will the lies about Iraq stop when we’re victorious? (I’m talking post-invasion lies, like the statue toppling and constant chorus of “there are good things happening”)
KC
But, I guess I should mention this if we’re going to discuss whether or not the administration wasn’t completely honest in the runup to the war.
Steve
I fail to understand what there is to be ashamed about in the Rockefeller memo – not in the slightest. Rockefeller and his colleagues discussed the best way to bring the administration’s misuse of intelligence to public light given the Republicans’ majority position and desire to cover it up. If you believe the opposing party has done something wrong, you are not “partisan” to challenge them for it.
And this is a minor point, but do you really think Clark saying he had military experience “at the top,” and Kerry did not, was one of the NASTIER attacks on Kerry?
John Cole
Steve- Yes, I did, because as any high ranking officer will tell you, it is the folks at the bottom who eat the bullets, sleep in shit, and have the worst of everything. To devalue Kerry’s service because he was not ‘at the top’ is profoundly offensive.
Lines
John, I don’t think Clark was devaluing Kerry’s service, just pointing out that he himself had greater leadership capability because he was at the top, so was just stating that Kerry’s service, while honorable, may not have brought the leadership qualities that he himself (Clark) thought were important to the position of POTUS.
I don’t see it as an attack at all, I see it as a valid comparison of experiences.
Davebo
John, you are stretching to the breaking point in classifying Clark’s statement as an attack.
ppGaz
Trying to get a handle on what is really going here, through the smoke and noise of all this insistence on pundits and bloggers trying to score points on each other ….
Are we saying that the NIE assessment is both cover for the runup to war, and at the same time, a binding contract, in that once someone was persuaded by it, he or she can never go back and claim that he or she was misled?
Seriously, what exactly is the correct spin on the NIE alibi?
Jorge
Hans Blix.
It kills me that in the conversations about the WMD’s/intelligence none of those that supported the move to war will acknowledge the work of Hans Blix. There was a fountain of new information coming out of Iraq and it came after the Senate vote. The real revisionist history is the one that doesn’t acknowledge that while Bush was talking about mushroom clouds and WMD attacks Hans Blix was debunking many of those claims.
Hans Blix and his team started their search using the best and most compelling evidence that the Bush team had. And they found nothing. In private meetings Hans Blix told the administration that the evidence was proving to be completely incorrect. The administration ignored his advice and then attacked Mr. Blix. I remember having online conversations in the late winter of 2002 early spring of 2003 with war supporters and they lambasted Blix and his findings.
And as John showed in his post, when you bring up occassions of Kerry and many other Senators saying repeatedly in the months up to war that the renewed weapons inspections had to be allowed to run their course you get shouted down. I’m sure that as soon as I post this someone will get to work on a rebuttal that attempts to minimize the work of Blix and the words of those Democrats that said that war should only be fought depending on the findings and work of the inspectors.
As for you that will say that inspections don’t work etc – Well, history has proven you wrong and those of us that believed in inspections right. Saddam was disarmed and was not building up his nuclear or chemical weapon capabilities. The failure all along was not in the part of the inspections but in those who were blood thirsty for the war and therefore incapable of accepting any inspection results that did not lead us to war.
Steve
Well, since John has served, I will take his reaction as more valid than my own. I still kinda think Clark was just riffing off a prior Kerry quote that wasn’t so valid once another military guy entered the race.
Either way, I doubt you could make a case that Clark’s comment was in the same universe as, for example, massive numbers of purple heart band-aids at the Republican National Convention.
Oberon
What routinely gets left out from “everyone thought he had WMD” is that was BEFORE the inspectors got back in.
Everyone seems to forget that Bush forced Saddam to let the inspectors back in (a good thing) and they found zilch (a good thing) and then we invaded anyway (huh?).
KC
Jorge makes a good point. I also think, credibility for the administration, Kevin made a good point today:
ppGaz
See, to me this is where the rubber meets the road.
In the period leading up to war, we had CNN reporting great detail on the movement of oil shipments over the roads of Iraq. Somebody was watching those oil trucks like a hawk. Somehow, we lost track of the WMD situation, though.
We talked, in 2002, as if Hussein were a really bad threat because he had interfered with inspections. But we failed, when we had the opportunity, to pursue inspection and use the inspection process to its fullest capability … until April 2003, when we had the opportunity to do our own in-depth inspections and found …. that all the previous assumptions had been, to coin a phrase, a total crock of shit.
Somebody help me out. Why, in the face of some pretty good evidence from the inspetions that we had time, didn’t we take the time to get and use more extensive inspections and clear up the WMD mystery once and for all, before committing to a war-without-end?
What was the hurry? If this mushroom cloud threat was so real, why was there such a rush to smack down Joe Wilson? Wouldn’t the facts have, in the fullness of time, proved him wrong?
What’s wrong with this skewed, bullshit picture?
Kimmitt
If someone accuses you of something, look real hard and see if they’re doing it. Projection ain’t just a TV type.
Vladi G
John, can you please explain how Clark’s comment was “in the gutter”? Maybe I’m reading that wrong, but it sounds like he’s saying that Kerry’s experience, while noteworthy, does not prepare him to be CIC the same way that being Supreme Allied Commander of NATO qualifies one to be CIC. Now, that’s a debatable position, and certainly there’s more to being President than simply being CIC, but where’s the attack?
Are you honestly comparing that to the attacks that Kerry faced from the swift vets?
Jorge
Why the hurry?
I remember the reason being that we needed to start the war in March because it was too hot to fight in Iraq during the summer.
Vladi G
Perhaps they feel that as long as the commander in chimp is running this show, there’s no way we’ll ever achieve victory in Iraq. Anything that takes the reins out of his hands is addition by subtraction.
John Cole
Vladi G.- Kerry’s experiences as a grunt are all the qualifications he needs, IMHO, to make the decision to send people into harm’s way.
Darrell
In order to “believe” in the value of inspections, one must be honest enough to acknowledge that a) inspectors never would have been readmitted had there not been 150,000+ troops on the Iraqi border and b) that situation could not be plausibly maintained
Oh, and given the network of ‘dual use’ labs detailed in the Duelfer and Kay reports, chemical weapons stockpiles could have been replentished in months. Saddam could be trusted though, right?
jg
Are you saying we shouldn’t investigate because it might effect the outcome in Iraq? Doesn’t that give Bush a pass on just about everything? He fucked up Katrina, but don’t ask questions because it could weaken him and we’re at war. Its the same bullshit that got him re-elected, we can’t change presidents at war time.
John,
I think its been established that just reading the NIE doesn’t mean you were given all the info. Lots was still classified, including info that pointed out the holes in the stuff that wasn’t classified.
Vladi G
So if Clark disagrees, or feels that his experience at both ends of the spectrum makes him more qualified, that’s an attack that took the argument into the “gutter”? I really think you’re grasping at straws here.
Do you not think someone with direct knowledge of military strategy in the last ten years might be slightly more qualified to make such a decision than someone who had last served in combat roughly 30 years ago at a much lower level? What’s Clark’s military background prior to his NATO post? Didn’t he also serve at a level comparable to Kerry at some point? I’m seriously asking. I’m not a military expert.
Jack Roy
John’s got his opinion, but I absolutely fail to see how what Clark said was one of the nastier of anything that Kerry faced last year. The Swift Boat Vets accused him of self-inflicting his wounds, fer cryin’ out. Dick Cheney said he lacked the resolve to respond to terrorist attacks. The charge that Kerry hadn’t been a general is pretty tame in comparison. (Not to mention true.)
Some perspective, please.
Vladi G
And to add, I don’t read that as Clark saying Kerry is unqualified. I read that as saying that Kerry isn’t *as* qualified as Clark. Again, that’s debatable, but it certainly isn’t an attack.
Dungheap
That last quote you have there by Senator Rockefeller is probably the most blatant piece of selective quoting I have seen on this site and is pretty disgraceful. That you link to someone that did it first doesn’t excuse it. Why wouldn’t you just link to the transcript? Because the reader would discover that he did say he was responsible and that yout are full of it?:
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
WALLACE: You’re not?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I’m responsible for my vote, but I’d appreciate it if you’d get serious about this subject, with all due respect.
OCSteve
Can someone explain to me why hypothetical SEN: X should not be charged under the Logan Act? 3 months after 9/11 – at a time when every head of state in the ME should have been losing sleep over exactly what the US was going to do – he takes it upon himself to give them his opinion of what the strategic direction of the US is going to be?
Darrell
Questioning Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq is entirely fair game. Accusing him of “lying” to get us in Iraq, or “doctoring of intelligence” to deceive Congress and the American people exposes many leftis Dems for the vermin that they truly are. Bush waited patiently while so many Dems jumped on the “Bush lied” bandwagon. Now Bush is coming out swinging bringing the “Bush lied” issue to a national debate in which Dems are being reminded of their own words and actions.. and as we saw with Wallace doing the Rockefeller interview, Dems are being ripped to shreds with their own words, exposed for the dishonest hypocrites that they are.
jg
He’s clearly trying to blame the mud slinging at Kerry on democrat. ‘See they opened the door’. Nice try.
Am I really the only ‘right winger’ from the 90’s willing to admit that we all knew that as soon as a republican entered the White House that Saddam was toast? Everytime Clinton launched a cruise missile it was talked about. ‘A republican wouldn’t just launch missiles.’ As soon as Bush was elected I said to people at work, ‘Saddams gone’. Nobody disagreed. Now th eright wingers all think it was because of 9/11? BULLSHIT!!!!
OCSteve
Try that link again: Logan Act
Jorge
Again, what does victory in Iraq look like?
My primary concern is with well educated Islamist that come from some of the best families from all over the middle east. These folks take other well educated young men who have travelled and studied abroad and teach them to fly planes into buildings and to plant bombs in subway stations and night clubs.
How does creating Democracy in Iraq make us any safer from these murdering zealots? Will this new Iraq be free of Islamists? Will it ensure that there are no terrorist cells or camps anywhere in the country? Will the way we created a Democracy in Iraq discourage the rise of new Islamists in the middle east? Will there being a democracy in Iraq discourage these zealots from wanting to create a caliphate?
I have yet to see anything remotely looking like a real initiative to counter Islamist zealotry from the Bushie. Almost everything that I have seen from this administration has actually fed the Islamist hatred for America. Now, that does not mean that it isn’t a worth while or noble globe to bring western style democracy to the middle east. But it is wrong to claim that using an aggressive foreign policy to bring democracy to the middle east is the same as fighting Islamist extremism. The truth is that the more success this kind of a foreign policy has the more it fuels the Islamist cause. A cause with its roots in America’s foreign desire to affect the governments and situations in the middle east.
I’d love to her Hitchens or Brooks or Cheney finally admit that neoconservatism is not the antidote to but the cause of terrorism. And for them to own up to the fact that Islamist terrorism is going to be a side effect of their policy regarding democracy in the middle east and Israel.
ppGaz
So, the thrust of all this is, whether the war was ginned up in an honest and stratighforward manner is not as important as whether Democrats should be held accountable for voting for it. In other words,
a) If a Dem was unjustified in voting for it, then he has no right to criticize Bush for the decision since they were both just mistaken, and hey, nobody is perfect
b) If a Dem was justified in voting for it, then he has no right to criticize Bush for the decision since Bush was justified too, even if they are both known, now, to be have been wrong
c) If a Dem has no right to criticize Bush for the decision, as we have now established, then the decision is beyond criticism and even talking about it is hurting the troops. Again, the correctness of the decision is not at issue, because it can’t be challenged (see A and B).
d) Therefore, only Dems can be held accountable for the decision to go to war. The president can not be held accountable for what turned out to be bad intelligence.
Did I miss anything? I don’t think so.
ppGaz
This thread is closed, it has now been handed over to Darrell, who is John’s lawyer in this case.
ATS
So, to revisit an essential GWB talking point, it does a disservice to our troops to criticize the management of this war.
And yet this war has no foreseeable end, which means criticism is off limits until the end of days.
jg
Talking about eht intelligence that we were all told is solid is talking about how Bush handled the war. I’m sorry if the word is too strong for you but he did lie. He knew the intelligence was weak but told us it was strong. Thats lying. The dems went along with the info they were given out of trust. They believed him and the intelligence he put forth. Now you call the dems vermin for being pissed they were given half the story? If Clinton put out a report saying Saddam had weapons but left out all the info playing down the intelligence you wouldn’t be pissed at him? You wouldn’t call him a liar?
Retief
Why can’t democrats have both the desire for political blood and an understanding that “defeat” in Iraq would be disastrous? Realizing that we’re in the middle of a swamp with no good ways out, and that we still don’t want to just stand and sink, need not preclude us from pointing out loudly who got us here. And sure embarrassment at not having prevented this misadventure might make someone more vociferous in blaming the guy who acctualy did lead us into the mess, but that is an embarrassment shared by a good many Americans. This sis the same form of argument as the “unpatriotic” foolishness last week: baselessly impugning the motives of somebody because their criticism stings and acknowledging or refuting it is impossible so hoist up the distraction flag.
Jorge
Darrel said “Questioning Bush’s handling of the war in Iraq is entirely fair game.”
What about questioning the way Bush minimized, mischaracterized and trivialized the findings of Hans Blix and the renewed weapons inspections? And please, remember that some of us believed in Blix from the beginning and that history has proven Blix right and Bush wrong.
John Cole
DungHeap- I updated the quote, which I did not have in full, but I fail to see how that makes Rockefeller look any better.
Geek, Esq.
With the administration beating its chest about Iran and Syria, you bet that we should examine this stuff.
However, the Dems do need a concrete plan for Iraq. Just like the Republicans need to do more than state that we need to “achieve victory.”
Lines
Hmmm, lets see, John. In the original exerpt you have Rockefeller not taking responsibility for his vote, making him look like a total asshole that no one could ever believe again. In the second, he calls out the reporter for a pointed question that should have appeared totally disingenuous and puts the unspoken, clear as day answer right out on the table.
Yes, John, there is a large difference.
Vladi G
Well for starters, he takes responsibility for his vote, where the original quote had him saying exactly the opposite. Sheesh! You’re the one who goes ballistic about context when Kevin Drum accurately quotes Instafuckwit, but you fail to see how completing this quote changes anything?? Sometimes I just don’t get you, John.
Lines
Geek:
Someone, anyone needs to have a concrete plan for Iraq. Right now there is this general idea that if Iraqi’s vote some more, it will all just work itself out. I guess if everyone votes enough time the insurgents will just get worn out and go home, resign themselves to a peaceful democracy where they have no voice in a virtual-representative system and maybe they can all get some speaking gig’s on Oprah later.
Oooooh, pigs just flew out of my ass.
ppGaz
What makes you think they don’t? I’ve been saying exactly those two things since I got here. Most Dems I know think the same thing. DKos does not represent the Dem mainstream (the great inert middle bulk of voters registered Democratic), so the rants of Armando cannot be taken to be rpresentative, any more than the insane blatherings of Darrell can be taken to be typical of Republican voters. The blogosphere is not the real world.
Unfortunately, the “staying in Iraq” idea is a minority position in America now, and the GOP has no ideas for how to counter that …. if last Friday is an example of their strategy, then they will drive support for the idea of staying even lower. All they seem to be able to do is to blame Dems for the fact that their folly has lost public support, and then act as if Dems are responsible for coming up with the solution to their dillemma.
Darrell
Sit back and enjoy. Dems across the country are going be called to the carpet, and deservedly so, having their own words used against them, being exposed as hypocrites as Rockefeller so clearly was. And not just hypocrites, but the kind of hypocrits who would undermine our country during war for crass political gain. The Wallace/Rockefeller interview is just a preview glimpse of how Dems are about to get their asses handed to them on this issue.
joshua
Probably because he actually shoulders the burden of his vote by claiming responsibility for it and clarifying that his initial response of ‘no’ was a head fake to give him the opportunity to slap Wallace’s knuckles for not taking the discussion seriously.
DougJ
Why would Armando object to that?
Darrell
what’s so great about this, is that so many leftist Dems are so extreme, that they don’t see the ass-kicking coming their way on this issue. Anyone who interprets the Wallace/Rockefeller interview as anything more than a disaster for Rockefeller and the Dems, is blinded by their ideology. Which is fine by me
DougJ
Actually, I don’t think anyone aside from the crazies of both sides who inhabit these sad fora, will take much notice of the Wallace/Rockefeller interview.
ppGaz
That’s right, Darrell. Your potatoheads can’t govern their way out of a mayonnaise jar, and their administration is in full meltdown. But it’s the Dems who should be worried that an ass-kicking is coming.
Darrell
Every Dem politician who made the accusation that “Bush lied” over “doctored intelligence” of similar accusations, will be asked by reporters to clarify, while the reporters remind them of their own words and actions in the buildup to Iraq. Keep thinking this is some insignificant fringe issue only followed by political junkies.
The issue of Bush lying over intelligence is a very ugly lie. When Dems are publicly held to account for their dishonest accusations, there can be no good outcome for Dems coming from that
KC
Remember, Dems should never ever be partisan. Ever.
The Disenfranchised Voter
There are so much bad logic in your post John that I really don’t feel like taking the time to address it all.
I address two points realy quick:’
First of all, if he came out and siad it how was it secret. And also you claim he did it to undermine our foreign policy…what exactly did he say? Oh that’s right he told them that Bush was going to war no matter what. Ummm, excuse my french but “whats the big fucking deal bitch?” (from South Park). He was obviously just telling the truth, not “trying undermine the effort”.
Secondly, The Senator is responsible for the rush to war. The Republicans are in control of the agenda and, and this is a big and that many Republicans such as yourself have trouble with… The Senate Did Not Vote To Go To War With Iraq. The Senate Voted to Give the President the Authority to Decide Whether or Not To Go To War. Therefore, the rush to war is on the executive branches soldiers. The Senators vote has nothing to with the rush to war.
Those are just two quick examples…like I said, there is a shitload of illogic in this post. I suggest rereading with an objective view and try to see if you can spot some of the other bullshit you typed. :)
The Disenfranchised Voter
There is, damnit There is, not There are!
The Disenfranchised Voter
shit, that should also read the Senator is not responsible for the rush to war.
DougJ
Darrell: what about the Republican lying about the Democratic lying about the president’s lying? Surely, there must be some of that too. And there’s probably someone out there lying about the Republican lying about the Democratic lying about the president’s lying.
Wouldn’t it be easier to just trust our president in every decision that he makes, in the words of Britney Spears?
Darrell
Partisan is one thing. The Dem accusations of “manufactured intelligence” to mislead America into war were despicable.
DougJ
Because accusations are infinitely more despicable than the deaths of thousands of American soldiers in a poorly planned war.
Vladi G
Hey, if there’s anyone here who’s an expert on lying, it’s serial liar Darrell.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I know I’m breaking my own rule here but would you shut the fuck up? It’s not just the Dems who are claiming this. I have no partisan goals. I supported this war and I was lied to and now I’m fucking pissed off. Don’t try to slander me you asswipe.
And once again, I’m going to provide the quotes that you asshats can’t explain…
Colin Powell – February 2001
“[Saddam] has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbours.”
Condoleezza Rice – July 2001
“We are able to keep arms from [Saddam]. His military forces have not been rebuilt.”
Clearly these two knew that Saddam didn’t have WMD and that he wasn’t a threat. I find it hard to believe that neither Powell, nor Rice expressed these opinions to the other members.
ppGaz
Was the war sold on the basis of a profound, proximate real threat of WMDs and nuclear capabiity?
Yes.
Was that threat actually there?
No.
Who takes responsibility for that?
GWBush: Hey, don’t blame me! They voted for it.
—-/
While the internecine ego-battles between bloggers is certainly great — and free – entertainment, it has nothing to do with the little story I just told, and that little story is all that matters. That little story is what is driving the collapse of support for this shithead government. All the Armando-bashing and the Darrell-Cole blathermonkey whining on earth won’t change that fact.
Darrell
I love it when you kooks reveal how extreme you truly are. Keep on characterizing the noble sacrifices of our military as “despicable” deaths in a “war over lies”. Louder now
OCSteve
Disenfranchised:
That one is easy – it is right in the dates of those quotes. I seem to recall a little something happening shortly after those 2 dates, in September maybe?
ppGaz
Because accusations are infinitely more despicable than the deaths of thousands of American soldiers in a poorly planned war.
Darrell, you stupid shit.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Are you seriosuly that fucking retarded? How does September 1tth explain the obvious discrepancies in their quotes?
Seriously, I know most Bush supporters are stupid but you can’t be this fucking moronic, or can you?
Vladi G
God, you really are stupid aren’t you? Stormy, is that you posting as Darrell?
Vladi G
Hmm, so after a completely unrelated entity attacked us, Saddam magically rebuilt his army and developed the capability to attack us? Was there magic fairy dust that flew up from the twin towers to Iraq that gave Saddam magical powers?
Steve
Darrell’s position seems to be that it is fine to oppose the war, but it is unpatriotic to suggest Bush lied us into it. He would have a much stronger case for the exact opposition proposition. Democratic attacks on Bush weaken the country only if you conflate Bush with the country.
Anyone who thinks that having the issue of whether Bush lied on the forefront of the national debate is a positive for Republicans is seriously deluded. The administration has quite successfully marginalized any discussion of this issue for the past several years. The fact that they are forced to confront it now – although I do not doubt their ability to mount a vigorous defense – is hardly a win. I guarantee you they would rather not be talking about it at all.
Sine.Qua.Non
Bush lied. Don’t try to tell me the Republicans wouldn’t take advantage of the situation to play political football.
neil
Usually I can tell within the first few sentences of a Balloon Juice post whether it’s going to be three screenfulls of rant.
This time too.
MI
..”in a poorly planned war.”
I know everyone thinks they’re a genius when it comes to this shit and that their specific perspective should be shared by all for the betterment of everything. But seriously, why isn’t the fact that we went to war with such a shitty plan enough to end any debate about this administration’s competency as it relates to Iraq? That we’re still there, STILL without a plan, or at least a plan that’s been successfully articulated to the american people,should mean game over for these guys.
Does anyone, democrat, republican, “bush lied!”, “no he didn’t!”, ect freaking ect, care that we’re in a war that for all intents and purposes, appears not to have an end? How come no ones talks about this? no one seems particularly concerned?
I read sites like this one, written by honest and thoughtful war supporters, but I never see any posts about where this is leading. I know John supports the war, but I’m not sure what that even means anymore. If in four years we’re still in Iraq, sill basically in the same situation, will people still be supporting it?
I have to echo most of what Jorge has said, I want some specifics, I wanna know what “winning” in Iraq means. I wanna know how long winning is going to take. I don’t need it in minutes, but one year? two more years? five, ten, fifteen more years?
I guess my overall point is this: for a freaking war, not a lot of people seem too hung up on the specifics. Which…..can’t be good.
DougJ
I’ll try — only 60% of the country seems to agree with me about this.
The sacrifices, by the way, are no less noble for having been made in a war that never should have been fought. Your Bush uber alles, Bush=patriotism, left=traitors, Bush= Jesus, Bush=truth, Bush=God, all hail the Lord George Jesus Bush, tremble in fear America-hating traitors talking points won’t fly anymore.
Time to get new ones.
DougJ
MI, I think that the lies about the war and the poor planning are of a piece. The same thinking, or lack thereof that went into ignoring and distorting intelligence helped conceive the “we don’t need a plan, they’ll greet as liberators” (and furthermore “my God is a real God, while there’s a wooden idol” to quote General Boykin) neocon “battle plan”.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Priceless.
Thank you for the laugh Vladi G. I felt like my head was going to explode until I read your comment.
OCSteve
Disenfranchised:
So you believe nothing should have changed in terms of strategic thinking after 9/11? Saying “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction” in Feb01 is much different than saying “last chance to account for WMD that you have failed to going back years” in 03 with 9/11 between those 2 dates.
They didn’t know anything because Saddam had still, after years of trying and threats, failed to offer the full accounting he was required to.
The threat they are discussing is regional. Regional threats were not enough of a concern to involve us militarily in early 01.
Everything changed on 9/11. WMD was not the entire rational – or even the largest. Shaking up the entire ME was and is.
I’m sure none of this is new to you. Feel free to flame away. It adds so much to your authority.
DougJ
Find a new talking point.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Wow, OCSteve. Apparently you are actually are that fucking moronic.
The mere fact that you believe the statement I quoted scares the living shit out of me. Delsuional people like you holding the same weight as my vote? Horrifying.
You’re talking to someone who once supported the war. The war was about the WMD, and the imminent threat Saddam posed. Let me know when you get back to reality.
The Disenfranchised Voter
scracth the one “are”
I really should start previewing.
John S.
Well, as they say, the Devil is in the details. So really, the effort to avoid specifity is being driven by the religious conservatives and their unwillingness to come face-to-face with the Prince of Darkness. Bush must appease his base, after all.
Vladi G
Pity that they didn’t make that case with the American people.
OCSteve
MI:
I have seen plenty of discussion about this. All parties you listed know that this is a process of years. But now one party is using the relentless doom and gloom pushed by the MSM and other factors for political gain. Somehow this should be all wrapped up and the troops home for Xmas…
There is a very clear exit strategy, that I have seen time and again. Admittedly, not enough and not loud enough. When Iraq stands up, we stand down. It really is as simple as that. Every American (and innocent Iraqi) death between this day and that is a tragedy. But anything else is a failure and an insult to those who have sacrificed it all.
DougJ
OCSteve, I’ve got an exit plan for Iraq too. When the magical fairies come down to Iraq to bring peace between then Sunnis and Shiites, we leave. Magical fairies stand up, we stand down. It’s that simple.
OCSteve
As I said – flame away. It really enhances your authority.
Mac Buckets
Imminent threat? Really? It’s only been 2.5 years — you’d think that everyone would know that this wasn’t about an “imminent” threat (except, apparently to Jay Rockefeller), but a “grave and gathering” threat.
ppGaz
Then Bush should be impeached. I don’t recall any mention of “shaking up the entire ME” as justification for the war, before the war. Why were we lied to?
John S.
Actually, one party was using relentless rosy pictures and optimism pushed by the MSM and other factors to pimp their war for political gain. Those fields aren’t as fertile as they used to be for some odd reason (reality).
I’m no military expert, but I’m pretty certain that pithy euphemism ≠ exit strategy.
John S.
LMAO
Who would have thought that Clinton’s much villified ability to parse terminology would be resurrected and given new life by conservatives?
Jorge
Hans Blix.
I really do believe that his name needs to brought up every few minutes in any discussion about the lead up to war.
OCSteve
I’m sure this is a waste of bandwidth in this thread, but if you really want to read the best strategic overview of the war and the goals, it is the semi-famous essay written by SDB in Jul03 and updated just today by TigerHawk.
Warning – It does tend to use some words a little more difficult than “fucking moronic”.
DougJ
OCSteve, time to get with the program. “9/11 changed everything” is out — “it’s all Jay Rockefeller’s fault” is in. Take a tip from Mac and Darrell.
Just to give you guys a headstart, here’s some stuff you might want to use:
–Jay Rockefeller once attended a fund raiser with Aaron Broussard.
–Jay Rockefeller gave $500 to MoveOn.org during the last election cycle.
–Jay Rockefeller forged the CBS Bush National Guard documents.
–Jay Rockefeller says he spent Christmas in Morgantown, but he was really in Charleston.
–Jay Rockefeller is a French spy.
–Jay Rockefeller killed Vince Foster.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Whatever Steve. I call ’em like I see ’em and you’re an idiot. No doubt in my mind about that. I still can’t get over the fact that you think 9/11 somehow explains Powell and Rice’s quotes that say Saddam wasn’t a threat to his neighbors, his military forces have not been rebuilt, and that he “has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction.”
How do the events of 9/11 explain a change of factual statements about Saddam’s WMDs made by Powell? You are doing nothing more than throwing a talking point at my argument and unfortunately for you it doesn’t explain why all of the sudden Saddam had stockpiles of WMD was an imminent threat after 9/11.
You are really wacked out brother. Get help. Seriously.
MI
…Shaking up the entire ME….
See, absolutely none of that kind of thinking holds any weight for me at the moment, because the guys running our country are so completely incompetent.
I’m not a pacifist, I’m not even an isolationist, you wanna democratize the middle east, fucking sweet, sounds good to me. You wanna democratize the middle east with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Wolfowitz? Not so much.
I feel there is an enormous amount up unexplored ground to meet on between people who would be inclined to share a neocon-ish view of the world, particularly after 9-11, but who have been utterly turned off by the failure and incompetence of this administration.
It’s like you either support the war in Iraq, or you’re an isolationist who doesn’t understand the threat of islamofascism (has Bush ever even mentioned islamofascism?!) There’s so much more in between that we never get to explore because so many people have tied themselves to this admin. Why aren’t there more people who say…well, what I’m saying, “I agree with this certain philosophy and world view, but these people have fucked it up so much, it’s vitally important we reevaluate and change directions to salvage what we can, go back to the drawing board, and try this again.” Instead it’s forever in Iraq, with still open boarders at home, no diplomacy, no trust, no military, no leadership, no competence, it’s a fucking mess.
Think about the leadership we could have compared to the leadership we actually get. “They hate us for our freedom.” Sorry, man, there’s just no way I’m following these guys anywhere, let alone on a mission to change the world.
DougJ
Why don’t you guys start calling him “Hanoi Jay” already?
Mac Buckets
“Imminent” means something entirely different to “gathering.” It’s not parsing to expect accurate statements. Sorry if you don’t get it.
ppGaz
OCS –
Absolutely amazing, and hilarious if not so tragic, that you would post that nonsense.
First of all, it’s a much-too-wordy defense of a “war on terror” with Iraq thrown in with the lot. Hardly applicable to this discussion.
Second, compare the Afghan campaign with the Iraq one. how much explanation for the former is required now? This much:
AQ/OBL attacked the United States on 911. The Afghan Taliban was harboring the perpetrators. We went in to get them and throw out the Taliban government.
There, I just saved thousands of useless words, and delivered an explanation that was sufficient three years ago, and is still sufficient today.
Where is the 3-sentence explanation for why we went into Iraq? What was it in February 2003, and why isn’t it sufficient now? Why is the justification different now? Why does it require ten million blogwords, and criminal investigations, and I Am Not A Crook speeches on Veterans Day to defend it?
DougJ
And if you look at what the dictionary says about throes, it can still be a violent period – the throes of a revolution, the throes of death.
Mac Buckets
Watch yourself, Doug. You don’t want to willfully misrepresent what I said, do you?
DougJ
I willfully misrepresent. I’m a willful misrepresenter.
ppGaz
What exactly are you saying?
“Look out in 2008!”
Wasn’t that you, yesterday?
Jorge
Um – here is Bush’s 2003 state of the union on imminent threat. Now, anyone with any bit of reading comprehension will be able to tell that what is being written here is that those who want to wait for an “imminent threat” don’t realize is that the threat already exists and is ever present. In other words, that the traditional imminent threat doesn’t exist becuase there will be no warning.
“Before September the 11th, many in the world believed that Saddam Hussein could be contained. But chemical agents, lethal viruses and shadowy terrorist networks are not easily contained. Imagine those 19 hijackers with other weapons and other plans — this time armed by Saddam Hussein. It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes. (Applause.)
Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.) ”
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html
I like to read this speech every few months. This speech was what made me go from politically disagreeing with Bush to being incredibly angy with him. By the way, notice that the word Democracy never, ever comes up in this speech. He uses “liberation” in the one paragraph. And while he brings up Saddam’s treatement of his people, he uses it in the context of what he would do to Americans. It is interesting to note this since supporters of the war now claim that bringing democracy to Iraq and protecting the people of Iraq were the real reasons for war. Well, when the POTUS made his case to the American people in 2003 he sure as heck forgot to include that information.
The Disenfranchised Voter
yes, REALLY:
Rumsfeld: (9/19/02) “Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent, that Saddam is at least five to seven years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain.”
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.”
Matt D
This is some discussion. Let’s all move entirely off the topic of changing stories about pre-war intelligence and just pile on Darell with a bunch of swearwords and exclaimation points.
Disenfranchised & Co.–Your response to the littany of quotes and publications showing that Democratic politicians made the same case for war as the President, using the same intelligence and coming to the same conclusion, is to publish two quotes from Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice that, yes, pre-date 9/11. You want to say that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, okay, but do you really not think that the definition of “serious threat” changed after 9/11? That’s not a “talking point” that’s a fact that even your story-changing Senators will agree with.
The rest of you wondering why we’re not focusing on the more salient point about the prosecution of the war making sure we win–this is exactly the point we’re trying to make. Your Democrat heros in Congress are the ones shifting the debate from the actual conduct of the war to one about whether the President mislead the country into war back in 2002 (congressional investigations and findings to the contrary notwithstanding). And why are they doing it? In part because they have no strategy of their own (at least I haven’t heard one other than “cut & run”) and because they want a “do-over” for the fact that they voted for the War three plus years ago. I would LOVE to see any one of these people say “We can do better. Her’s why…” instead of all this CYA nonsense. I’m happy to listen and maybe even vote for the person who steps forward, Democrat or Republican.
John S.
Mac Buckets-
If it’s not parsing to expect accurate statements, then what do you make of the following statements?
– White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett responding to the question.“is Saddam an imminent threat to U.S. interests, either in that part of the world or to Americans right here at home?”, 1/26/03
– Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, 9/19/02
– White House spokesman Ari Fleischer answering whether Iraq was an “imminent threat,” 5/7/03
– White House spokesman Scott McClellan, 2/10/03
– President Bush, 11/23/02
– President Bush, 10/7/02
– President Bush, 10/2/02
I guess you’re right. Bush never actually used the term “imminent”, so I can’t imagine where people got that notion from. I’m sorry that we don’t “get it” the way you do.
ppGaz
Been there and done that. Nobody wants to hear it right now. The country is not having a crisis of faith over “doing better.” It’s having a crisis of faith over being let down by the people in charge. Being misled.
Until you deal with that, you aren’t going to get “doing better.” And no, it’s not the Democrats’ responsibility to show the spuds how to dig themselves out of their spud hole.
The whole problem with the current situation is the thing that half of the blatherers here, including John Cole and Darrell, just don’t want to own up to: Bush and his people lied. Whether you like it or not, that’s what happened, and nothing is going to get better for them until they deal with it. All the rest is just churn.
The Bush government is done — something well beyond lame duck — until that is dealt with. If Friday was the strategy, then you can start writing the epitaph of this bunch right now. That dog is not going to hunt.
You want better? Better will be when the GOP loses control of Congress.
S.W. Anderson
John Cole informs us, “Truth be told, there probably were some people who were questioning Kerry’s patriotism- I am sure some of the Swift Vets were, some of the more strident members of the right-wing blogosphere and talk radio were, and I am sure the Free Republic had a less than nuanced stance.”
Sheesh, it’s nice to see you’re attuned to what’s going on around you. I’m reassured that if you happen to be in S.F. when The Big One hits, are driving by Mount St. Helens during the next eruption to wipe out a few hundred square miles of countryside or, God forbid, if you get caught out in the next Katrina, it’s reassuring to know you’re sufficiently in touch that you’ll probably take some self-preserving action.
Good grief! Talk about understatement! The lying propaganda prostitutes known as Swiftboat Vets for Truth did everything but shoot Kerry and drag his naked body through the streets behind a Hummer supplied by their Texas-millionaire john. They certainly did as bad as that to his honorable, exemplary record of military service.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Matt D, you are also, an idiot. Congratulations.
Mac Buckets
Sentence One: Because in 1998 regime change in Iraq was made the official US policy towards Saddam’s brutal minority government, and invading Iraq, while being mindful of minimizing civilian casualties, was the most effective and humane way to achieve that policy goal.
Sentence Two: The US had tried sanctions, bombings, and fomenting internal rebellion in Iraq, and those didn’t get the regime changed.
Sentence Three: Do we need a three? Well, OK, Saddam tried to kill Bush’s dad!
Vladi G
Hey, in all fairness to Mac, he just said immediate, which means something totally different from imminent. And when I figure out just how the two are different, I’ll post that right here.
Mac Buckets
Apology accepted. I would’ve fired any spokesman who said Saddam was an “imminent” threat as soon as the words came out of his cakehole. Bush was always careful not to say it.
OCSteve
MI:
I agree with much of your post. It is certainly true that some things could have been done better. I am not tied to this administration in the least. Personally I would prefer a real conservative in there, one not afraid to say ‘islamofascism’ on a daily basis, one who would have had both Iran and Syria playing a lot different game today. I’d like to see fiscal constraint and control of our own borders.
But much of what goes on today is people armchair quarterbacking with the benefit of perfect hindsight. I personally think there should have been a hell of a lot more ‘shock and awe’ in the opening battles and a lot more boots on the ground following that up. I think the borders with Syria and Iran should have been locked down immediately with any cross border excursions resulting in immediate and dramatic consequences.
But none of that matters because I was not invited into the cabinet. What good does it do me to constantly complain about those things that could have been done better? No one at any time or place has fought a perfect war – what would that even be? While I think some things could have gone better, I’m also willing to give them credit for the things that have gone amazingly well. And yes I do think it is important to support the country, the troops, and the administration in a time of war.
Without looking back – what would you change today to straighten things out going forward? The one thing I can see making the most impact would be to double the number of troops deployed and lock down those borders with Iraq’s neighbors. That would go over well right now….
Mac Buckets
I’ll help you: That quote didn’t say the threat from Iraq was “immediate” — he just said that no other state posed a more immediate threat. That’s not saying that there are any current threats that qualify as “immediate.”
Jorge
Mac wrote “Sentence One: Because in 1998 regime change in Iraq was made the official US policy towards Saddam’s brutal minority government, and invading Iraq, while being mindful of minimizing civilian casualties, was the most effective and humane way to achieve that policy goal.”
Um, you do realize that “regime change” is our policy to quite a few countries around the world right? You literally don’t have to travel more than 90 miles from Key West to find a country in which the US’ policy is regime change.
As far as the bombings, sanctions etc – you are twisting things around if you are saying that the goal of those was regime change. Because those things happened before the regime change policy came up.
As I wrote before, our current enemy are older wealthy, educated middle eastern Islamist who like to send younger, wealthy, middle eastern Islamist on suicide missions. Can you provide me with the road mad as to how invading a middle eastern country with out provocation is going to get intellectual, wealthy, civilian Saudi Arabian, Egptian, Pakistani, etc to stop launching terrorist attacks against the US?
John S.
I guess you aren’t familiar with sarcasm. Next time I’ll be sure to ecapsulate any such messages with a pair of sarcasm tags.
And of course Bush was carefuly not to use the term “imminent” (although Bush’s OFFICIAL spokesman DID) so that people like you could trumpet it as a talking point.
Are you now arguing that “threat of unique urgency” or “unique and urgent threat” are not the same concept as “imminent”? And if you are arguing that, then do you still stand behind your insistence that you don’t parse words for meaning that reflects your personal taste?
ppGaz
No point is too obvious for you to miss it. Those are not the arguments that were made to the people in 2002 to move this country to war.
If those were the reasons, then Bush belongs in jail. We were lied to. We were told that our immediate safety depended on getting this guy RIGHT NOW. No time for more inspections. That was a lie.
What a crock of shit. Were you trying to be funny? No wonder these assholes are heading for approval ratings in the twenties.
John S.
From the Department of Terminology Parsing:
I’m not saying that Mac Buckets is a lying sack of shit. I’m just saying that no other poster is more of a lying sack of shit than him.
Jorge
Good Gosh I’m going to post this again…
“Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option. (Applause.) ”
The man is saying that threat is beyond imminent. He is actually taking it up a level. He is saying that with imminent you stand warned. But now, there will be no warning. Remember, he is saying this in the context of 9/11 and the “no one could have know” reasoning. He has already said in this speech thaat Iraq has tons upon tons of chemical weapons and that they have a working relationship with Al Qaeada and other terrorist groups. The POTUS is flat out saying A) Saddam has tons of WMD’s B) Saddam is actively working with Al Qeada and C) Al Qaeda will give us no warning when they attack us with WMDs.
The “he never said it was imminent argument” is just as much a fraud as any argument about intelligence and WMD’s that do not acknowledge Hans Blix.
Steve S
Wow, if that isn’t twisted logic.
Matt D
What a jerk. Seriously, why waste your time at a site where anyone has a different opinion? Go post at Kos if you want to just hurl explitives and be congratulated for your insight.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the opposition to put forth an alternate solution. The stakes are too high to suggest that “get rid of Republicans” is a solution in and of itself. This is exactly the point. Every November for the past 6 years, I get the same incredulous reaction from Democrats saying “How can people vote for this man/these guys”? And then I get when I ask for an alternative to consider, the response is “Why should we have to come up with ideas?. Let them bail themselves out of their own mistakes.” Hating George Bush is not a plan. Neither is hoping the country gets so screwed up that people have to vote out the majority.
ppGaz
It’s called Red Vines politics. Twisted, sweet tasting, with no nutritional value whatever.
Mac Buckets
Forgot? Listen, if you have your fingers in your ears up to your wrists, you aren’t going to hear it. There are valid arguments to oppose going to war in Iraq, but this isn’t one of them. If you don’t get the freedom and humanity angle from this speech, you just aren’t trying. Try reading any of the other dozen or so major pre-war speeches — they all include the “liberation” litany, too. You’ve got to open your eyes to read it, though.
Mac Buckets
It’s simple. Either he said it was “imminent,” or he didn’t. Either he said “grave and gathering,” or he didn’t.
Just use the correct words next time. Is that so hard?
Mac Buckets
Since I can read, I’m not offended. See how that works?
John S.
Mac Buckets-
What is the date of that speech you quoted and to whom was it delivered? I know minor points like that usually make little difference, and I should give you benefit of the doubt…
I’m not saying you are untrustworthy, I’m just saying no other poster here is less deserving of trust.
Steve
How funny. Bush’s communications director says the threat is imminent, but since Mac Buckets says he would fire any spokesman who said such a thing, the quote doesn’t count!
Mac Buckets
Of course, the White House is not as good as me at putting a clean point on things. After all, they are just government workers.
The whole “immediate safety” bit (which was never really said) goes back to WHY Congress passed and Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act to begin with, so your argument is with them. Why did they decide in 1998 that we needed to change regimes in Iraq all of a sudden? I think Clinton’s answer was clear and Bush echoed it in his rationale for war.
John S.
I see. So terms that are synomonous really don’t mean the same thing as terms that mean the same thing? Interesting logic there. I suppose if I said that my car was crimson, that isn’t really the same as saying it is red? Because, after all, I used a completely different word!
I’m not insinuating that you are disingenuous, I’m just pointing out that there are very few arguments that are so lacking in ingenuity.
Mac Buckets
Count? For what? He was wrong. Even press secretaries can be wrong, agreed?
Jorge
“I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect the opposition to put forth an alternate solution.”
An alternate solution for what? Iraq? Senator Kerry and McCain are both offering different alternatives on Iraq. Kerry believes in a plan that has our troop numbers withdrawing as the poltical process goes along in Iraq. He gives specific deadlines and processes McCain’s plan is for increasing troops long term.
Neither plan is getting any credit from the administration or either the press. Because the reality is that administration is going to do exactly what it wants. The Bush plan is the only plan we are going to have until 2008. But please, let’s not pretend that people on both sides of the isle have not been offering alternatives to the Bush plan every step of the way. Those people have ended up being fired, marginalized or swift boated.
If people are truly looking for alternatives then they need to reject the attacks that seem to bombard anyone who disagrees with the POTUS. And let’s be honest, had the revelations of 2005 happened in 2004 Kerry would have won by a landslide.
Darrell
Bush specifically addressed that issue. He said that we should act against a threat BEFORE it becomes imminent. He was quite clear in spelling that out. Sorry if you missed it
Mac Buckets
I you would read a dictionary, you’d see that “imminent” and “gathering” aren’t synonyms (then you’d have to look up “synonyms”). I’m beginning to think that you are just very transparent when you are being intentionally obtuse.
ppGaz
You just don’t get this, Mac. People sitting in around in Oval Offices, and people writing policy briefs in Washington offices, are one thing. People … like you and me and ordinary people … are another.
We, the people, run the country. We, the people, were not moved to go to Iraq until a case was made that our immediate safety depended on it. That was false.
What policy wonks and scheming politicians thought, I couldn’t care less. It’s what the people think that matters, and the people were manipulated.
That’s the whole point, man. Clinton? Fuck him. I don’t care what he thought.
Mac Buckets
It’s the speech the other poster linked to (SOTU, January 2003).
Darrell
Not much press given to Kennedy’s plan to leave Iraq either
Bush was given authorization to go to war in Iraq by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority. There was no “other plan” at that time other than the one offered by the kooks carrying their “BushHitler War for Oil” signs. Now for crass political gain during time of war, we have one side, many of whom voted for giving Bush authorization to go into Iraq, who are now running around spreading ugly lies about how Bush “manipulated intelligence” to take us into a war. But don’t dare question their patriotism, right?
Pb
9/11 changed everything. No longer will Republicans wait to have facts or logic to make their arguments. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Therefore, we wouldn’t have the time to gather sound intelligence beforehand. By insisting on accurate information and facts, and the use of logic and reasoning, the Democrats are endangering our national security. America is safer with a strong leader in charge who can tell you what to fear, without some torturously slow fact-finding review process getting in the way.
Jorge
“Try reading any of the other dozen or so major pre-war speeches—they all include the “liberation” litany, too. You’ve got to open your eyes to read it, though.”
Holy wow! This was the state of the union. This was THE frigging speech. Look at the TV ratings. No POTUS speech comes close to touching this one. Heck, you can put the 10 highest rated speeches before this one together and their ratings won’t touch the ratings of this speech.
As far as the “liberation” litany – he uses the word once in the whole speech. The argument I’m making is that the number 1 reason that Bush got public support for the war was WMD’s and that’s how he and his staff sold the war. And the American people supported the war for 1 reason and one reason only – WMDs.
Look here is the thesis statement of the portion of the speech.
“But let there be no misunderstanding: If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm, for the safety of our people and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. (Applause.)”
That’s it. That’s the sales pitch. It is all about disarming. The UN resolutions were about disarmament.
Yes, he uses the word “freedom” and the word “liberation” each once in the whole speech to refer to the Iraqi people. Do you want to guess how many times he uses the words “weapon”, “threat”, “nuclear”, and “chemical.” It is completely and totally dishonest to claim that this administration sold this war to the people of this country and the world on any other grounds but WMDs.
ppGaz
Why do Democrats want to criminalize wagging a dog?
Darrell
But Democrats, with the same intelligence info as the President, after a year-long public debate, themselves voted to give Bush authorization to go into Iraq. Iraqi regime change became official US policy in 1998. Then there was a year long public debate in which Congress gave Bush authorization to topple Saddam which occurred in 2003. Some “rush” to war, huh?
Jorge
“Bush was given authorization to go to war in Iraq by an overwhelming bi-partisan majority. There was no “other plan” at that time other than the one offered by the kooks carrying their “BushHitler War for Oil” signs. ”
That’s just not true. From troop strength, to waiting for weapons inspections, to the nature of the international coaltion, there were all kinds of plans. You do remember that the general who suggested we need 400,000 troops was put to pasture? There is a very big difference between there being no other plans and Bush not listening to them. Again, everyone from McCain to Kerry to Powell offered very different scenarios. But there was no way that Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld would ever take anyone else’s advice.
OCSteve
President’s Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly – September 12, 2002
5 steps laid out to avoid war. Each of these was enforcement of an existing UN resolution. We did not add any new conditions. Exactly 1 mention of WMD in that list and that being “unconditionally forswear, disclose, and remove or destroy”.
John S.
Funny, you are the only one arguing this red herring of “imminent” vs. “gathering”. In the quotes that I provided, Bush referred to the situation as a “threat of unique urgency” as well as “unique and urgent threat”.
Furthermore, if you check the Thesaurus, you will find that the two terms that compose your red herring argument ARE synonomous. See right there on the list of synonyms under imminent? Yup, gathering is on there.
I’m not saying that you are a liar…
Oh, wait. You are a liar.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hey! Not only are you an idiot–You are a cry baby as well.
Once again, Congratulations…
ppGaz
And since none were found, which of these would you say did Iraq fail to do?
Jorge
“But Democrats, with the same intelligence info as the President, after a year-long public debate, themselves voted to give Bush authorization to go into Iraq. Iraqi regime change became official US policy in 1998. Then there was a year long public debate in which Congress gave Bush authorization to topple Saddam which occurred in 2003. Some “rush” to war, huh?”
Did you just say the same info? Democrats knew about the dissenting opinions about the aluminum tubes, the niger uranium, and the ties to Al Qeada? And here I thought the administration failed to share that administration.
As far as rush to war – the rush to war came in early 2003 when Bush kicked Hans Blix out of Iraq and refused to acknowledge the fact that the inspections were proving the administrations claims wrong. Every punding on Fox was saying that we couldn’t wait to go to war much longer because we needed to get the major fighting done before the hot summer months.
Again, any argument about the rush to war that doesn’t deal with Hans Blix and how incredibly right time has proven him to be is completely dishonest.
Matt D
I believe you, though I don’t remember hearing or reading about any sort of plan from Senator Kerry. However, your point that the press doesn’t give credit to alternate solutions is the point I am trying to make. Why would the press pay attention to Democrats proffering alternate solutions when the party leadership is busy trying to rally them around the “Bush lied” meme?
Darrell
Was that because of a “chill wind” blowing? Bush was given Congressional authorization. That authorization was given by an huge bi-partisan majority after a year long debate.
BTW, I think it’s entirely fair to re-hash whether we had too many or too few troops in Iraq and other issues regarding how the war was conducted. My problem is the lies being put forth by Dems that Bush “mislead” us into a war. That intelligence was “doctored” by the Bush administration. These are ugly, ugly lies which need to be addressed
Lines
ppGaz, I demand you destroy all of your WMD’s or I’m coming over and blowing up half of your house.
And don’t bother telling me you have no WMD’s. I know you do, the rest of the world knows you do. They are North, South and West of the living room.
And your mini-van? Mobile Weapons Lab. Your oven? Duel-use autoclave. Your refrigerator? Its a WMD storage unit.
Bring it on!
Mark Wilson
I think I get this now. The point of the new “Bush lied” PR campaign is to satisfy the need of the Democratic base to indulge in their Bush-hatred and exhaust their emotions on the topic, with the goal of rendering them more amenable to following the 2008 nominee when she moves sharply to the right of the Republicans in the war on Islamofacism. However, we’ve still got three years of war-fighting to do before then.
Darrell
Oh yes, Congressional approval hinged on those aluminum tubes. Please make the case how that “proves” Bush “lied”. Iraq did have ties to Al Queda and the former president of Niger says Iraqis did approach him trying to purchase uranium. Tell us what intelligence was held back from congress. Not small details, but the kind of intelligence which would have changed minds.
OCSteve
The onus was on him to prove he had destroyed them all. He never did. The UN inspectors were not there to find WMD hidden in the desert. They were an auditing team. They had records of what he previously had – their job was to verify they had been destroyed. That’s a point a lot of people miss – they were not looking for new stockpiles, they were there to verify stuff they said they had destroyed had in fact been destroyed. The onus was on Saddam to prove it and he did not.
And he didn’t get to pick and choose from this list of UN resolutions – he had to accept them all.
Lots of posters here claim it was all about WMD, there never was any other causus beli. I post the full list from 2002 – and the response is “And since none [wmd] were found…”
ppGaz
Please, not the autoclave!
Sojourner
Well, actually, before 9/11 they announced their intentions. But since it didn’t involve Iraq, the Bushies weren’t interested.
ppGaz
You posted a bunch of rhetoric from a speech. Stuff that wouldn’t have persuaded a nation to go to war. None of it was new.
The persuasion was based on the false idea of an immediate threat to the safety of this country. There was no such threat.
Sojourner
Not likely. The libs don’t drink kool-aid, even if it comes from Ms Clinton.
Lines
Wow, OCSteve is way out in front of it all. He knows everything about the mission of the IAEA and the Hans Blix biological team. He knows! The rest of you should bow down now, because damnit, he knows!
And since none of the dual-use equipment had been touched, because none of the scientists they found verified the US stories about WMD’s or laboratories, because hindsight is 20/20, OCSteve is right! He’s fucking right!
OCSteve = Judith Miller
Sojourner
Here’s the problem. If Saddam weren’t an imminent threat, why the rush to pull the weapons inspectors out? Why divert military forces from tracking OBL? Why spend billions of dollars on someone who is not an imminent threat instead of spending it to tighten homeland security?
None of the above makes sense unless the rationale was an imminent threat.
That’s what the American people believed and that’s why the war happened.
ppGaz
Well, not so fast. Miller was an investigative reporter for 20 years. Just imagine the chicanery and deceptions that must have been required to pull the wool over her eyes!
ppGaz
Now wait just a minute. That was for their own safety.
Mac Buckets
Good post, Ppg. As far as the people not being moved to go to Iraq, I’m not sure what the poll number would’ve been in 2000 for taking out Saddam, but I would wager that it would’ve been similar to the favorable numbers in 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq and 2003 when we invaded.
But the fact is that, in decisions of war and peace, We, The People don’t run the country. The citizenry never get a direct say in military matters. What 63% of We, The People thought in 2003 was almost totally irrelevant. What 58% (or whatever poll number we buy into) of We, The People think about Iraq right now doesn’t matter a whit in the prosecution of this war.
We, The People go to war when our politicians say so. Russians go to war when their politicians say so. Doughboys went to war when FDR said so (even though the people in pre-WWII polls were against it), the French went to war when Napoleon said so.
What I’m saying is that “making a case to the people” is a pragmatic, political undertaking, done with one eye on the next election. It’s not part and parcel of the war itself.
The other thing I disagree with is your characterization that Americans only reacted when the Administration pushed that the “immediate safety” was threatened by Saddam. I think we all were concerned for the future if Saddam was left to his own devices, given his past history with inspection regimes, WMD, and going to war with Iran, the US, and Kuwait. We didn’t need a case to be made, if we had kept our eyes open regarding what Saddam had done and was doing. In other words, no one listened to the pre-war litany of intelligence on Saddam’s weapons and thought, “No way! Saddam would never do such a thing!”
Intriguing post, I’d love to get deeper into it, but I gotta go.
John S.
You assume that the burden of proof was on Saddam Hussein. But if that were the case, why did the administration go so far out of their way to provide burden of proof to their claim that he posessed WMD if in fact the burden was not on them?
You are a necrophiliac, OCSteve. You must prove to me that you do not engage in sexual congress with corpses. Until you prove that, you are a bona fide necrophiliac.
John S.
Translation: I got caught in a lie, so I’m outta here!
ppGaz
I’ll avoid the easy laugh here. I’ll give your statement more room than I think it deserves, and say, okay, fine, for the sake of discussion, I’ll agree to it.
In that case, those politicians damned well better be right, because that’s what we’re paying them for. To be right. And if they turn out not to be right, then we are paing them to take responsibility for being wrong.
They were wrong. Let them now take responsibility. When I see them do that, then they’ll get my respect. Not before.
PS — I don’t really agree. This country should go to war when a solid majority of the people are in favor of it, and at no other time. And the people damned well better be told everything and be given plenty of time and room to digest it. Otherwise, you are asking the people to elect kings, and I for one will never agree to that.
ppGaz
I’m concerned about a lot of things. Not one of which would move me to declare a war.
searp
Bush made a huge mistake, and all the caterwauling won’t compensate. Colin Powell went to the UN and made a case for intervention based on WMD. They weren’t there. Congress authorized force based on WMD. If they were wrong, it was a bad vote. They didn’t start the war, though. Only one man did that, our president.
Doesn’t really make much difference if he lied, he started a war by mistake. We’ve started wars for dubious reasons, but we’ve never started a war and found out it was a mistake before. I guess there is a first time for everything.
The minutia don’t matter when the mistake is monumental. He is the worst president in history, no doubt about it.
Andrew Sullivan thinks this is a forgiveable mistake. Forgiveness requires acknowledgement and repentance. Where is our president on that score?
kl
There was no statue, and besides, it didn’t topple.
Darrell
In March 2003 when we invaded Iraq, polls were showing 60% in favor of using military force to topple Saddam
ppGaz
What he said.
ppGaz
Because they were lied to, you goddamned moron.
Cyrus
Darrell and friends love to point out that Democratic Congressmen voted with Republicans to authorize Bush to use force, so there couldn’t be anything wrong with the intel Bush used and the whole thing was done in good faith and blah blah blah. First of all, I’ve read that that’s not the case, that the intelligence the Congressmen get is filtered through the executive branch, forgive me if I’m too lazy to look for a cite.
But even if it is true and all Democratic Senators really did have access to everything Bush knew, and even so believed that giving him authority to invade was necessary… I couldn’t care less.
Two reasons. First of all, the vote was to give Bush the authority to use force, which would be a bargaining chip and an intimidation tool, the stick to go with the “cooperate with inspections” carrot – no one ever voted on the Let’s Invade Iraq Bill of 2005. A Senator could have voted to give Bush authority and then hoped to God he never used it. (That would be stupid and insanely gullible of him, but it would still be honest and honorable.)
And second of all, even if that isn’t the case, it’s still not the Senators who did it, it was Bush. When a cop shoots a guy because he says he thought the guy was reaching for a gun when it was really his wallet, you’d have to be a complete idiot to focus your criticism on the City Council or desk jockey at HQ who wrote the policy allowing cops to carry guns rather than the cop himself. (Not a perfect analogy, I know, but all the others that came to mind were even worse, so…) Even if every single member of Congress voted to give Bush the gun, he’s still the guy who pulled the trigger.
Steve
Let’s lay it on the table. A great number of the Democrats were simply spineless when it came to the war. The administration was going full-throttle to make the case for war, Bush was traveling around the country during the 2002 campaign taunting Democrats with the electoral consequences of voting against war, and there was a definite national mood to do “something” proactive even after Afghanistan.
Fact is, there were dissenting views, there was evidence in both directions, but there was no “smoking gun” to prove that Saddam had no WMDs or that he would never give aid to terrorists. It’s hard to prove a negative, and Saddam isn’t the kind of guy who inspires you to give him the benefit of the doubt.
If there were such a thing as an anti-war cabal, a shadowy group in government determined to make the case against the war, the case could have been made. There was plenty of dissenting evidence to hype, there were plenty of opportunities to complete the weapons inspections and demand more from the administration before voting yes. But that would have required someone to stick their neck out. Fact is, the administration set the date for the vote a month before the election, they handed over the supporting intelligence documents only a few days ahead of time, it would have been an act of great courage for the Democrats to collectively say “Stop! You’re rushing us into this, and we need to see more.” That’s particularly the case in a political environment where, if you stop everything to demand additional evidence, and the additional evidence does in fact support the cause for war, you can’t simply give the go-ahead and it’s like you never objected in the first place. You’ll be pilloried far and wide for obstructing the President and anything that goes wrong in the war will be laid at your doorstep.
The President staked his reputation on the war and, even though he won re-election, I don’t think history will be kind to him. But the Democrats – even the anti-war ones – weren’t willing to similarly stake their reputation on opposition to the war. Maybe Howard Dean was, but he was a nobody with nothing to lose anyway. The people in a position to do something about it weren’t willing to take chances.
In the past week, Bush has tried to distract attention from the issue of whether he misled the American people by making the issue about whether he misled the Democrats in Congress. It’s a smart move, because the point is fair. There’s little doubt in my mind that the administration doctored the intelligence, that they made the case for war as aggressively as they could and cut a lot of corners along the way, but you have to be a severe Kool-Aid drinker to believe the Democrats were simply 100% snookered. Either they weren’t paying attention or they didn’t want to take the risk of sticking their neck out, neither of which is excusable.
Even if it ends up proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush lied, and his entire administration ends up in disrepuate, that’s still not going to make heroes out of the Democratic Party. Other than a few lonely voices, they simply didn’t do their job of serving as an opposition party and testing the administration’s claims in the interests of making sure America does the right thing. Let’s not kid ourselves about that.
CalDevil
While we’re trying to be complete about the all important Rockefeller-Wallace “serious” vs. “responsible” dust-up, let’s finish that exchange:
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
WALLACE: You’re not?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I’m responsible for my vote, but I’d appreciate it if you’d get serious about this subject, with all due respect. We authorized him to continue working with the United Nations, and then if that failed, authorized him to use force to enforce the sanctions. We did not send 150,000 troops or 135,000 troops. It was his decision made probably two days after 9/11 that he was going to invade Iraq. That we did not have a part of, and, yes, we had bad intelligence, and when we learned about it, I went down to the floor and said I would never have voted for this thing.
WALLACE: My only point sir, and I am trying to be serious about it, is as I understand Phase Two, the question is based on the intelligence you had, what were the statements you made? You had the National Intelligence Estimate which expressed doubts about Saddam’s nuclear program, and yet you said he had a nuclear program. The President did the same thing.
ppGaz
Here you have the difference between the blahsphere, and the real world.
In the blahsphere, it’s about “making heroes out of the Democratic Party.”
In the real world it’s about a failed president taking responsibility for a decision that was based on wrong assumptions.
The president has no credibility. He needs to stand up and be accountable.
ppGaz
The it’s time for the president to be a man, and stand up and take responsibility for it.
OCSteve
Lines
As could you – it’s not like it is a secret. Gosh they even have a web site.
The point I tried to make that you ignore is that many posters here are trying to argue that the inspectors had not ‘found wmd’ prior to the war. That doesn’t mean a thing. Their mission was verification:
-Saddam, when we “withdrew” in Dec 98 you had 50 tons of VX. You say you destroyed it in the 4 years we weren’t here. Can you provide some evidence of that destruction?
-Uh no. We poured it down the drain. Trust me.
Again – they were not looking for new, hidden stockpiles. They were verifying that weapons claimed to have been destroyed from 94 and before had been destroyed. Yes they also looked for evidence that new programs had been started or old ones reconstituted.
John S.
No. I’m stating that the burden of proof was on him via the commitments he accepted to end hostilities in 91. “to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, and to prove to the world it has done so by complying with rigorous inspections.”
ppGaz
The rhetoric was a list of UN resolutions being flouted by Saddam and un-enforced by the UN. Most of the discussion I recall from the period revolved around these resolutions. Those resolutions in their totality were the causa bele – it was not just about wmd. That is rewriting history. It’s just more of the constant shifting of the goalposts.
John S.
Ahem. To say “bullshit” would be putting it mildly. There isn’t a SINGLE poll I found from March 2003 worded in such a way (because that wasn’t how the issue was framed).
The closest I found was a FOX News Poll worded as follows:
Check out Polling Report here, here and here to see the compendium of just how
wrongfull of it you are.ppGaz
Nope. It was the immediate threat to this country in general, and nuclear capability in partiular, that was used to sell the war.
The UN speech, to this day, couldn’t be described by even ten percent of Americans. But until recently, a huge percentage thought that Iraq was involved in 911. That’s not an accident, that was deliberate. That’s why the WHIG was formed.
They ginned up the war on the basis of false assumptions. It’s time for them to take responsbility.
Way past time, actually.
Lines
So when the Hans Blix team stated that they doubted that the quantities originally reported were ever made, that they had determined in more than 1 case that the scientists and manufacturers lied about the quantities, they were just making it up to stop the US? Or what?
I had doubts about the veracity of the information being presented since 2002. Having Rummy stand up and say “we know exactly where the WMD’s are” just cemented my opposition to the war, because if that had been true, wouldn’t we have provided that to the UN instead of declaring it on TV?
It all goes back to the old lawyer joke, just a little twisted: How can you tell when someone in the Bush Administration is lying? Their lips are moving.
DougJ
Hans Blix killed Vince Foster, you left-wing america-haters. I’m starting to think that some of *you* might have been involved in Vince Foster’s murder quite frankly.
jobiuspublius
AHA, I KNEW IT: John Cole = DougJ.
Kimmitt
Howard Dean was a popular six term governor. For the record.
Darrell
Wikipedia:
Dungheap
John — You may want to tell the folks over at redstate.org that you changed the deliberately misleading quote. They seem to have not received the memo.
Darrell
Dungheap Says:
John—You may want to tell the folks over at redstate.org that you changed the deliberately misleading quote
What quote did John ‘deliberately mislead’ on and how was it misleading?
Darrell
Oops, didn’t blockquote. meant to post this
What quote did John ‘deliberately mislead’ on and how was it misleading?
Dungheap
Contrast:
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
WALLACE: You’re not?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No. I’m responsible for my vote, but I’d appreciate it if you’d get serious about this subject, with all due respect.
to:
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
jobiuspublius
Now I see why Corzine wants to get out of dodge.
AHA, I KNEW IT: Armando = Senator X.
DougJ
One non-smartass thing I do find interesting: How is that the Bush people claim on the one hand that Silberman-Robb *proved* they didn’t pressure analysts yet on other claim that the weapons inspectors had no proof that Saddam didn’t have WMD? Was is absence of evidence proof of innocence in the one case and not in the other? And if Silbermann-Robb “proved” that there was no pressuring of analysts, did the O.J. jury prove that O.J. was innocent? I’m just wondering…
Mac Buckets
Seriously, does everyone believe that history started in 2000, or is there a substance in the Donkey Kool-Aid that erases memories? Do we even teach history is schools anymore? “We’ve never started a war and found out it was a mistake before?” Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998-1999 because he thought they had WMD (here’s where you tell me that bombing Iraq is not a “war,” and I tell you that if these bombs were dropped by Iraq on Chicago, we’d damn sure say it was a war), so the “mistaken” rationale for the Iraq War isn’t even unique to itself! Also, look up “McKinley and the USS Maine” and “Gulf of Tonkin” for starters, and see what real lies — err, mistakes — to start wars look like.
Sojourner
But the difference you choose to overlook is that Clinton, wise fellow that he is, didn’t start a way.
DougJ
I agree that’s not true, Mac.
ppGaz
So you are capable of admitting a mistake ….
Sojourner
Are you that desperate that you’re now going to re-define the meaning of war???
Congratulations, you just jumped the shark.
ppGaz
This party is over, kids. You are arguing about who gets credit for the arrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic.
DougJ
Can we meet in the middle and call this “McCarthyism Lite”? That should make both sides happy, no?
Darrell
Dungheap, you leave out a key excerpt in your “deliberately misleading” quote:
Dems lying about their own statements to smear George Bush
jobiuspublius
Darrell, are you saying that the NIE is the only intel that Shrub in Chief had?
ppGaz
ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz………
rilkefan
Where’s the full context for the Rockefeller quote? Did he get to reply to the “My only point sir” para? Though it does sound like he responded to the same question earlier when he noted he had only gotten very late access to the NIE, that it was anyway a partisan document, and that in the end he had made a mistake. I think he’s done a poor job, and I sure as hell won’t vote for him if I ever get the chance, but at least he’s being responsible. (And I’m pretty agog that John thought the stuff he hadn’t quoted originally doesn’t matter.)
Dungheap
Darrell – I’m not trying prove a point other than that John repeated his selective quoting elsewhere after correcting it here and thus have no reason to mislead. Additonally, I prefer not to defend a person I’m not terribly fond of, namely Senator Rockefeller and for the record, I’m not a Dem.
John purposely omitted Rockefeller affirmatively accepting responsibility for his vote in an effort to mislead reader to believe that the senator stated he is not responsible for his vote. That’s bullshit and shouldn’t be tolerated, nor should it be repeated on another site.
Darrell
WALLACE: But you voted, sir, and aren’t you responsible for your vote?
SEN. ROCKEFELLER: No.
Rockefeller tried to get away with claiming that he was NOT responsible for the way he voted, and Wallace called him on it. Only then, did Rockefeller change his answer. No bullshit, that IS what happened.
DougJ
And can we call what the Bush administration did “lying lite”?
ppGaz
I’m sorry, Darrell …. were you under the impression that the history of this period would be about Rockefeller?
That’s the John Cole version of history.
You might want to pull you head up out of the sandbox and look around.
Darrell
Doesn’t look good for Bush’s reelection, does it?
ppGaz
I think he’d be lucky to be invited to the Bush family Thanksgiving dinner, at this point.
aop
Didn’t see anyone really comment on Steve’s excellent post. It’s obvious beyond serious argument at this point that, whether the administration outright lied or just cherry-picked information, they engaged in really unseemly manipulation of the truth to get us involved in Iraq. The Dems and the press, however, bear, in my mind, an almost equal responsibility for being total chickenshits. Only now that poll numbers make it politically expedient to do so, are they finding their spines and speaking up. Fuck ’em all, with the possible exception of Russ Feingold.
Slide
Bucket Boy:
How many Americans died as a result of Clinton’s actions? How many thousands were horribly wounded? How many hundreds of billions did it cost? Do you REALLY want to equate Clinton sending in a few cruise missiles with a military invasion a sovereign nation?
ppGaz
“Support from the core of the Republican party is now starting to crumble ….”
H. Fineman, MSNBC, within the last 5 mins.
“He didn’t make bipartisanship … the hallmark of his policy (he is going to have a hard time asking for it now) …
“It was my way or highway …”
“It’s a negative argument …. ‘The Democrats made the same mistake I made.'”
“It’s going to dig them in deeper here …if that’s the strategy that they are trying now.”
— Fineman, at this hour on MSNBC
BumperStickerist
Well, ppgaz
Let’s not forget that the 100 UN inspectors in Iraq required the presence of 100,000+ Armed and Ready Coalition troops in Kuwait before they were kinda/sorta allowed to do their inspecting.
Also, bear in mind that the War was not inevitable in the sense that Bush was going to invade Iraq come hell or high water.
.
ppGaz
So what? How much of your billion-a-week war is justified by that piece of information?
I have no idea what you mean by that.
Darrell
Yes, because former Secretary of Defense under Clinton, a person who would be in a position to know about such things, must have been the victim of Bush “cherrypicking” and “unseemly manipulation” too, as he stated even after the invasion took place:
Democrats threw out unseemly lies and manipulation of the truth, and now they are justifiably being called on what they have been doing. This is a fight the Dems cannot win if Republicans have the will to pursue it.. the Dems who promoted the “Bush misled us into war” lies, they really are scum for what they did. Dems, many of whom voted to give Bush authorization to go into Iraq, tried to push their lies that Bush “doctored intelligence”, really ugly lies that undermine our efforts in Iraq. I’m glad Bush has come back swinging on this issue
Mac Buckets
We’re talking about rationale for war, and you change the subject to costs, as if that’s an answer for anything? When you’re ready to stay on-topic, you can join the conversation.
Slide
What did Rockefeller vote for? Some snippets of the resolution:
The resolution gave authority for Bush to use force if all diplomatic efforts were exhausted. In a time of war one generally gives the President the benefit of the doubt if he determines it necessary to use force. I don’t think approving the resolution means that the person that signed it would have invaded Iraq but rather it would have been imprudent to tie the hands of the President at such a time.
It was the President’s call to go to war. He should take responsibility for his blunder and stop trying to lay it on the Dems that may have voted for the resolution..
ppGaz
But he was wrong.
Mac Buckets
Define war, if you are going to make that argument.
I’ll go first, with the very first entry on dictionary.com:
1. A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties.
Clinton ordered more cruise missiles fired on Iraq in 1998-1999 than were fired in all of the Gulf War, because he thought Saddam had not followed UN disarmament Resolutions. It was open, it was armed, it was prolonged, it was conflict, it was between nations.
Tell me again it wasn’t war. Again, if Iraqi bombs fell on Chicago, you know we’d call it war.
Darrell
Bush is ready for the fight.
Slide
hey asswipe, of course you have to take into account the cost of war when making such a momentous decision. The cost in lives. the cost in treasure. the cost in our nation’s credibility. So you think that shouldn’t enter into the decision making process? You’re right buckets, I’m old school, I think President should actually weigh the costs of war before lying through his teeth to try and convince Americans to sacrifice their sons and daughters for the cause.
Thats one of the big beefs I have with this amateur administration. They always wore the rose colored glasses. They ignored the warnings by the CIA, the State Department, and even by Bush Sr’s advisers like Brent Skowcroft, as to the possible dangers of such a war. I want my commander in chief to look at the worst case scenario when making decisions and not just the overly optimistic idealism as spewed by the totally discredited neocon movement..
Darrell
CIA head George Tenet told Bush that it was a “slam dunk” that Iraq had WMDs
ppGaz
Snort.
John Cole
I don’t know why I am addressing this, since it is a blatant lie, but here goes anyway:
I did not intentionally distort the comment at all.
I ‘corrected’ it here as soon as I was made aware, and then I had to actually go do my real life work. I will correct it at Red State now, bnut I did not earlier because I was, get this, doing actualy real life work and didn’t think of fixing it there until I waded through this thread.
I am sick and tired of pricks I have never met impugning my integrity.
Furthermore, I say I ‘corrected’ it, because I don’t think it changes that much at all. He only grudgingly admits he is responsible for his vote, and then snaps at Wallace that ‘his’ responsibility is unimportant at all.
The Comish (sic)
Slide:
Right. That should only apply to the White House, though, and not (Democratic) Senators. And it should only apply to the present occupants of the White House, and not future occupants, which is why it was ok to vote for John Kerry.
Because the Democrats didn’t lie. They just … uh, Bush lied, people died!
Slide
Darrell changes the subject:
no Darrell I’m talking about the warnings the CIA had about sectarian fighting that may result with our overthrowing Saddam and the chaos that will follow (as opposed to the being greated as liberators with flowers and candies that the naive nitwit neocons were suggesting)
Slide
Darrell:
Too late, he’s already lost the fight.
Darrell
Some in the administration were overly optimistic, just as many on the left were predicting a “rise of the arab street” telling us that democracy could never take hold in an arab nation. Looks like both ends of the extreme were wrong
Darrell
Senator Harry Reid’s website:
Bush lied, people died!! War for oil!![/kook]
Slide
Darrell said:
Well, I think the left was right about the Arab street.
I don’t know Darrell, how bad do you want it to get?
Mac Buckets
Exactly. Why on earth would a rational human being, or even the bumbling Senator Rockefeller, answer such an emphatic “no” to that very simple question in the first place? Answer: Because those guys always get away with ridiculous answers, especially on the Sunday shows. Then, to try to weasel out of it after (much to his shock) a reporter dared question his risible response, he pulled out the out-of-the-blue “get serious about this subject” line which was odd, meaningless, and never explained, and then he tried to change the subject quickly to troops levels, of all things.
By the by, has anybody answered the question as to why Rocks went, “by myself,” in January 2002 to Syria, a terrorist-supporting state, to warn them that Bush was going to attack Iraq? Doesn’t that strike anyone as
treasonousodd?Mac Buckets
Lame rhetoric, trying to change the subject. The topic was that Clinton bombed Iraq in 1998-1999 because he thought they had WMD, so this wasn’t the first time that “mistaken” rationale was used as the basis for war. If you have something relevant to add, go for it. The cost of Clinton’s actions are irrelevant to that topic, as they have nothing to do with Clinton’s pre-war claims of WMD or his rationale for war.
Sojourner
It wasn’t war.
Slide
It wasn’t war no matter how many times you say it. Clinton did not “go to war”. And yes the cost and consequences of one’s actions are very relevant to the issue.The fact that you so easily dismiss the death of 2,000 brave Americans and the horrible maiming of tens of thousands nauseates me. Why do you diminish the importance of their sacrifice? It reminds me a little of when Wolfowitz testified before congress and didn’t have a clue as to how many troops had died in Iraq but he could rattle off how many barrels of oil Iraq was producing at any given time. Tells you a little something about the priorites of the right wing. Posturing hypocrites.
Mac Buckets
Sure, yeah, what do dictionaries know about the definitions of things, anyway? Your hollow, unsupported assertions of what words really mean are enough for me! Just for grins, tell me what part of the defintion of “war” wasn’t satisfied. Just make something up if you’re stuck.
Strawman for sale! Get your red-hot strawman!
Slide
Definition of war:
widespread conflict? violence between combatants? Please stop playing semantic games. I have heard NO ONE describe the actions Clinton took as being WAR. I just love when the right plays these little gotcha types of games. Little smug shits. And these were the same asswipes that talked about the “meaning of is is” for years. Posturing hypocrites.
Mac Buckets
No, that wouldn’t be a monarchy — that would be a Representative Republic, as described in the US Constitution. You want every average citizen to have top-flight security clearances, so they know what President is told? I think the FBI, the CIA, and the military might have a slight problem with that.
But fine, you’re arguing what “should” happen, I’m just telling you what does happen in every government on the planet for the last millenium or so.
Slide
Since some here like to pull out some Dem quotes from the past let me return the favor with some quotes from the administration PRIOR to their decision to go to war.
amazing how things changed
ppGaz
You think that citizens should accede to WAR on the strength of “trust me” from a government, on the basis of secret information known only to a few officials?
Fuck, man, what country do you think you are living in? That ain’t America, and never will be as long as I have anything to say about it.
retire05
I would just like to throw this into the mix;
Was Clinton lying in 1998 when he said that Saddam possessed WMDs and that was the reason he was bombing Iraq?
If Clinton was not lying, what happened to those WMDs?
Were they ever accounted for or proven to be destroyed?
Saddam threw the UN inspectors out in 1998. How long was it before they were allowed back in and how long was Saddam was left unfettered in his WMD/nuclear programs without oversight?
And who did Saddam have in his pockets and why were they so against going to war with Saddam? (Can you say Food For Oil scam?)
So we have one of two senarios;
first; Clinton was not lying and Saddam had WMDs that have never been accounted for OR
Clinton was lying to cover his own scandals and bombed Iraq for no good reason.
Would some liberal please answer this for me?
Dungheap
John – I appreciate you fixing it at redstate and notice that you responded to the comment made over there that someone saw the misrepresented quote “several places that [Rockefeller] is not responsible for his vote. Pathetic.” You had time to respond to that comment (while failing to address the innacuracy of the quote) but no time to correct it?
As for calling me a “prick,” I’ll chalk that up to projection.
I enjoy your blog immensely and will continue to enjoy it in the future. Sorry for calling bullshit on bullshit. It won’t happen again lest the namecalling get a bit nastier.
John Cole
Dungheap- believe it or not, I actually work and don’t always have the time to ‘jump’ when commenters demand it. As to what honked me off, it is the ‘intentionally misrepresented’ bs, which was projection on your part, or an attempt to smear me as dishonest.
Take your pick.
Dungheap
It was either intentional misrepresentation or the result of laziness. You choose. This is how those rumors on the internets begin.
Me, I’m watching the Eagles and consider the matter closed. Keep up the (usually) good work.
Q-Babe
Reading through this thread, I am struck by the notion that the dialogue is really pointless. There are two separate tracks here — with no possibility of an intersection any time soon. It seems to me that many of the posters are tactical thinkers while a smaller number are strategic thinkers.
The tactical thinkers are focused on the present day details as reported by the media citing casualty figures, civil war concerns, etc. The constant barrage of negative and selective reporting in Iraq has got to be more than depressing for those who are focused only on the casualties and fearmongering about civil war with no belief in the overall long-term objective. This tendency towards a focus on the details also feeds the anger about faulty WMD intelligence. What they remember now as THE REASON for going to war is probably the one most convincing argument that persuaded them at the time that going to war was either the right or the wrong thing to do. Since then, they have done a data dump of all the “unnecessary” details replacing them with new pieces of information provided by the also detail-oriented MSM.
The strategic thinkers, on the other hand, I believe, understood the big picture fairly early on, synthesizing ALL of the arguments for going to war into one strategic goal that envisions a stable, democratic ME region. Consequently, today, they are still betting on long-term success in spite of the short-term concerns and sacrifices.
But, until our current leadership can communicate the strategic vision on a wider scale as well as convey more of the tactical successes in Iraq, the two sides will only talk at each other.
ppGaz
While it may be well itentioned, this is where your argument falls apart. There is no — no — historical or empirical basis for believing in such magical thinking.
The idea that a country should be taken to war, and lives thrown into the meat grinder of war, for something like that is abasolutely disgusting.
Mind you, this fantasy is being played out by a president who ran in 2000 as the guy who was AGAINST NATION BUILDING.
And please don’t tell me that “911 changed everything.” It didn’t, and that myth needs to be stomped like a bug. It may have changed the thinking of some people, but it changed little about the reality of the world. Nation building was a stupid idea in 2000 and it is a stupid idea today. But even if you think it is an arguable point, nation-building can never be the basis for taking this country into a major and long-running war.
Pb
retire05,
Obvious third scenario: Clinton wasn’t lying, and in fact did just what he said he was going to do: blow up the WMDs.
Apart from that, I will say that in any scenario, I’m glad that’s all he did, even if it was just brinkmanship–better to go for the successful and cheap military fake-out and come out ahead of the game than to go all the way for the long and expensive war and come up short.
John S.
Once upon time, Republicans used to say such things.
Beej
This may seem to be straying from the point, but I assure you it is very relevant. Has anyone or everyone here read Thomas Freidman’s LONGITUDES AND ATTITUDES? (I still haven’t figured out how to do an underline or italics)
Way back in this line, someone (I think it was Jorge) asked what we do about all those educated young men who are poised to make terror attacks on us. As Freidman makes clear, our biggest failure in the ME has been our failure to explain ourselves: who we are, what we believe in, what we value and why those values matter. So far as I can see, we still have not made any real attempt to show Middle Eastern societies who we are and why we believe as we do. (I’m not talking about religion here, I’m talking about our political and social codes) We have to do this if we’re ever going to have any chance to see a stable ME. Why aren’t we doing it?
John S.
A hell of a lot more than you do, Mac Buckets. After all, you were the one claiming:
When if one read the dictionary – unlike you – they would find the exact opposite is true. Gathering is a synonym for imminent, so forgive me if I f view your comments with just a bit of skepticism (particularly when you start discussing definitions).
Mac Buckets
Only that was impossible, since and since the Duelfer report says there were no WMD to blow up in 1998, and doubly impossible since the 1998-99 bombings didn’t even include all the suspected WMD sites. Not even Clinton has suggested that he destroyed any WMD in those bombings.
So we’re left with the other two possibilities, along with the one that suggests Clinton and Bush both believed the weight of intelligence that they were receiving and both believed that Saddam had WMD, and both sought to alleviate the threat of the WMD in their own manner.
Mac Buckets
First of all, that’s a thesaurus, not a dictionary. Second, if we are to believe that all those words listed are “synonyms,” then we’d have to believe that “imminent” is synonymous with “likely,” too — a ridiculous notion.
Not the same at all — “imminent” means the danger is just about to happen any minute, “gathering” means danger is getting closer with no mention of when the danger will occur.
Again, why don’t you break out your definition of war for me then, and tell me how Clinton’s actions in 1998 don’t constitute “war?” I already showed that it was war, by definition. I can’t wait to see how you’ll try to weasel your way out.
John S.
Mac Buckets-
You are insincere as the day is long. You flat out lied when you stated:
Because they are synonomous terms. Then, you feebly attempt to discount the fact that synonyms really do mean the same thing:
When in reality, the only ridiculous notion I see is your attempt to support your assertion by showing us that two synonymous terms really aren’t synonyms because of your interpretation of their definitions – thesaurus be damned.
No genuine person could sit there and reasonably argue what you are arguing. You are a huckster, and anyone that attempts to have an exchange with you expecting sincerity needs to have their head examined.
Mac Buckets
Oh, now I know what the problem is: You have the wrong idea about what a thesaurus does. You think that any word that’s on the list is interchangeable and means the same as the word you’re looking up. Well, let thesaurus.com disabuse you of that notion:
I gave the definitions and showed that the two words are not the same, I showed how the thesaurus lists words which are clearly NOT synonymous in the same list…unless you are honestly going to sit there and argue that the following words which also appear on that list of “synonyms” mean the same as “imminent:”
possible
probably
likely
in view
next
“Possible” is not synonymous with “imminent,” yet it’s on the list — it’s up to you to consult a dictionary to find the differences in meaning and to realize that they are not interchangeable.
So it’s not that I’m being insincere and a liar, is it? I am just aware of what a thesarus does and doesn’t do.
John S.
Yes, Mac, let’s all pretend that context is unimportant to word usage and then oversimplify and mischaracterize someone’s position to cover up your lie. I never said that words that are synonymous were interchangeable. I did say that they are, well, synonymous – in other words they are the same when the intent of usage is the same.
Let’s try this. When Winston Churchill used the term “gathering storm”, was he referring to something far off and unlikely to occur, or was he talking about something that was imminent?
Bottom line: You claimed gathering was not synonymous with imminent. It is. Therefore you made an incorrect statement, and all your grasping and elaborate posts will not change that.
I know what the problem is: You are far too arrogant to admit you are wrong, even when it is painfully obvious you are.
Pb
Mac Buckets Says:
Tell me about it.
Mac Buckets
So that’s your criteria — if you personally didn’t hear Desert Fox called “war,” then it wasn’t? Well, naturally, it was only openly called war by those who opposed Clinton’s actions, so you didn’t get many anti-war quotes from the right or Congressional left, who overwhelmingly supported the actions. I was in England then, and the liberal parties had a big anti-Blair “Stop the War in Iraq” campaign in December 1998, as did the Greens in Australia. Those on the Noam Chomsky Left and some in the international press openly called it war, while the American media typically ignored the actions.
There was discussion on the left of a violation of the War Powers Act:
Again, if Iraq had fired 600 tons of cruise missiles on Chicago, that would clearly be war, but since Clinton did it to Baghdad, it’s somehow not war?
Mac Buckets
And clearly, that is not the case with “imminent” and “gathering,” as Bush made concrete in the SOTU.
There’s Bush saying plainly that the threat was not yet imminent, so he must not have meant “imminent” when he said “gathering,” right (and I can’t even believe that I have to point that out to an English-speaking adult)? Right. Oh, but I’m sure you’ll tell me that you know better than Bush what Bush meant to say.
Bottom Line: You’re wrong. Bush made clear what he meant and did not mean, and he did not say or mean “imminent.” If anyone attributes to Bush a quote saying the threat was imminent, they are either a liar or ignorant.
Mac Buckets
So your “obvious” third scenario couldn’t have been true, if you believe the Duelfer Report.
John S.
LOL
Whatever you say, Mac. The sky isn’t blue, the grass isn’t green and Bush didn’t create a sense of urgency that a mushroom cloud would appear over America courtesy of Saddam if we didn’t move to take him out.
Because clearly, when Bush said “The Iraqi regime is a threat of unique urgency.” and McClellan said “This is about imminent threat.” what they really meant was that it was merely a “gathering” threat and not all that pressing of a matter.
I’m going to cease and desist this discussion with you, because we are at a woeful impasse of reality vs. Mac’s world, and I would hate to have to take my own advice (and have my head examined) by thinking that you have even a shred of sincerity and are worth talking to.