• Menu
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Before Header

  • About Us
  • Lexicon
  • Contact Us
  • Our Store
  • ↑
  • ↓
  • ←
  • →

Balloon Juice

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

The GOP is a fucking disgrace.

Nothing worth doing is easy.

Shallow, uninformed, and lacking identity

We are builders in a constant struggle with destroyers. let’s win this.

Fuck these fucking interesting times.

Putin must be throwing ketchup at the walls.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.

Republicans in disarray!

An almost top 10,000 blog!

When do the post office & the dmv weigh in on the wuhan virus?

The revolution will be supervised.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

I’d like to think you all would remain faithful to me if i ever tried to have some of you killed.

That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.

We are aware of all internet traditions.

Conservatism: there are some people the law protects but does not bind and others who the law binds but does not protect.

Jesus, Mary, & Joseph how is that election even close?

If you tweet it in all caps, that makes it true!

This fight is for everything.

Nancy smash is sick of your bullshit.

I’m pretty sure there’s only one Jack Smith.

But frankly mr. cole, I’ll be happier when you get back to telling us to go fuck ourselves.

JFC, are there no editors left at that goddamn rag?

Mobile Menu

  • Winnable House Races
  • Donate with Venmo, Zelle & PayPal
  • Site Feedback
  • War in Ukraine
  • Submit Photos to On the Road
  • Politics
  • On The Road
  • Open Threads
  • Topics
  • Balloon Juice 2023 Pet Calendar (coming soon)
  • COVID-19 Coronavirus
  • Authors
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Lexicon
  • Our Store
  • Politics
  • Open Threads
  • War in Ukraine
  • Garden Chats
  • On The Road
  • 2021-22 Fundraising!
You are here: Home / Humorous / An Interesting Strategery

An Interesting Strategery

by John Cole|  November 16, 200512:05 pm| 126 Comments

This post is in: Humorous, Politics, War on Terror aka GSAVE®

FacebookTweetEmail

This is an amusing new defense for Democrats, offered up by Oliver Willis:

This video from the RNC would be funny if it weren’t so transparently pathetic. Yes, Democrats thought Hussein was a bad guy — especially when they were given slanted intelligence briefings that made it clear Hussein was gonna launch a nuke in five minutes. And none of them made the final decision on invading and occupying Iraq.

The buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania – no matter how much Bush tries to evade responsibility. The blood, sweat, and tears are on his hands.

Sure, we said all that stuff, and we really believed it, too! But you can’t blame us, we were lied to!

We’ll see if this gains any traction.

FacebookTweetEmail
Previous Post: « The Latest Non-Scandal
Next Post: One Last Time »

Reader Interactions

126Comments

  1. 1.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 12:09 pm

    Who was lying to them and misleading the poor, naive saps from 1997-2000? Because they said Saddam had WMD then, too. Elections are coming — who will be the first Senator to say that Clinton “lied” about Iraq’s WMD first?

  2. 2.

    M.A.

    November 16, 2005 at 12:12 pm

    How about blaming the Democrats, who were lied to, and the administration, who lied?

    The Bush administration tactic is basically to point out that Clinton et al said many of the same things they did. So what? Most of us anti-war types wouldn’t mind if a real investigation made Clinton look bad too. The reason the Bush administration is trying to block an investigation into manipulation of intelligence is that it would inevitably make them look bad, and they’d look worse than the Democrats because they (the Bushies) were the ones who were actually in charge.

    Democrats? Screwed up. Many of them are now admitting it. We horrible anti-American liberals are willing to see our own party singed too, since we actually care more about real things (like all the lying and stuff) than protecting our party.

  3. 3.

    jg

    November 16, 2005 at 12:14 pm

    It has nothing to do with thinking he might have something. Its how it was dealt with. Clinton may have ‘thought’ it but there was no hard evidence to warrant an invasion. Bush ‘produced’ intel. Bush made the case that we need to invade. He bullshitted us(in case you get all hot and bothered by the word lie).

    Sure, we said all that stuff, and we really believed it, too! But you can’t blame us, we were lied to!

    Bush made the case that invasion was nescessary, Bush convinced them it was nescessary. You don’t think we should hold him accountable if it turns out he overstated his case? You’re going to provide cover for him with this attack on dems? Tool.

  4. 4.

    Steve

    November 16, 2005 at 12:16 pm

    Yes, let’s invade Cuba, since Jack Kennedy said they have missiles aimed at us.

    Of course everyone had a pre-existing belief that Saddam had WMDs. In fact, even today no one disputes that he DID have WMDs at some point in the past. The issue is that the Administration withheld all of the newer intelligence which would have cast doubt on everyone’s pre-existing belief.

  5. 5.

    salvage

    November 16, 2005 at 12:18 pm

    Anyone who voted for this war, no matter what party they’re from, should have that vote hung round their necks. Fooled or fools it doesn’t matter as the results were the same; America jammed in a quagmire.

    Fire them all.

  6. 6.

    Jill

    November 16, 2005 at 12:19 pm

    Okay, it’s all the Dems fault for believing what the POTUS presented to them.

  7. 7.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 12:20 pm

    Yeah, this is all the Democrats fault. They never should’ve trusted Bush.

  8. 8.

    Jill

    November 16, 2005 at 12:23 pm

    Oh wait…i thought after 9/11/01 that it was unpatriotic to question the POTUS? If you did you were with the terrorists.

  9. 9.

    Faux News

    November 16, 2005 at 12:30 pm

    “Oh wait…i thought after 9/11/01 that it was unpatriotic to question the POTUS? If you did you were with the terrorists”.

    Correct. Just ask former US Senator Max Cleland (D-GA).

  10. 10.

    Steve S

    November 16, 2005 at 12:35 pm

    It’s actually simpler than that.

    Congress gave Bush the authority to go to war, if he must.

    But Bush made the final decision. So it is totally Bush’s fault.

    Now an argument can be made that Congress passed the buck, that the Constitution requires them to formerly declare war, etc. And I agree, they should get a backbone and do what they’re supposed to do.

    But that still doesn’t take away from the fact that this is all Bush’s fault.

  11. 11.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 12:39 pm

    Most of us anti-war types wouldn’t mind if a real investigation made Clinton look bad too.

    Democrats is Congress would, though, so that would be fought tooth-and-nail. You’re right, a goodly chunk of the rank-and-file Dems (and the Chomsky left who never liked Clinton much anyway) wouldn’t mind if Clinton gets savaged, because he isn’t “their guy” for any upcoming elections. It’s one of the few benefits of supporting a Party that is out-of-power. You can pretend (or confess) that you thought your last leader was an idiot, too, and deflect those attacks on him — frequent comments on this blog provide ample examples. (If the GOP had accused Clinton of “lying” about Saddam’s WMD in 1999, however, we all know that most of the left would’ve come completely unglued and questioned patriotism and all the normal rhetoric, because Clinton was their Party’s guy back then.)

    Congressmen, however, find it near-impossible to “sacrifice the last leader.” They are invested in the Party Name, and historically haven’t been willing to criticize widely their last guy. Add to this the fact that the last leader’s wife is a powerful Senator the frontrunner for the 2008 nomination. You think they want her as an enemy right about now?

  12. 12.

    Andrew J. Lazarus

    November 16, 2005 at 12:39 pm

    Quite right, but Oct 02 I knew George Bush was lying, and the Democrats should have. But they suspended disbelief, more I guess out of fear of the 2002 midterms than anything else. But it’s not as if the DNC runs its own intelligence service in competition with the CIA, DIA, etc. They work from what the executive gives them, which in this case was pretty heavily shaded towards a Foregone Conclusion.

    Now, to me the Dog that didn’t bark in the night is Bush’s refusal to recalibrate our “intelligence” on the basis of Hans Blix’s inspections in early 2003. The highly detailed disinformatsia we had gotten from Curveball and his ilk was turning out as total BS. Bush and Cheney didn’t care. That’s the final clue that they wanted their little wargasm. (Pay close attention to the timeline, MacBuckets.)

  13. 13.

    Blue Neponset

    November 16, 2005 at 12:45 pm

    I think this is gaining traction. Dubya thought it was important enough talk about on Veteran’s day.

    The Repubs are making a mistake, IMO, if they think this won’t resonate with the American public. Bush decided to fight a war we didn’t have to fight and what is worse is that he refuses to admit he made a mistake. The public doesn’t want to blame someone but they do want someone to take responsibility. That is what good leaders do. Non-Democrats are finally realizing that Dubya isn’t a good leader and if he doesn’t disabuse them of that notion he is going to have a piss poor second term.

  14. 14.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 12:45 pm

    Who was lying to them and misleading the poor, naive saps from 1997-2000? Because they said Saddam had WMD then, too. Elections are coming—who will be the first Senator to say that Clinton “lied” about Iraq’s WMD first?

    The Bush Administration–deliberately in my opinion–overstated the threat Saddam posed in order to gain support for the war.

    I doubt the Clinton Administarion ever called Saddam an imminent or an immediate threat.

    That is the lie.

  15. 15.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 12:46 pm

    Damn those Democrats! Why would they ever believe a President wouldn’t mislead them while debating the most important decision a country can make.

  16. 16.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 12:46 pm

    It has nothing to do with thinking he might have something. Its how it was dealt with. Clinton may have ‘thought’ it but there was no hard evidence to warrant an invasion.

    No sale. Clinton dropped 10,000 tons of ordnance on Iraq, held killer sanctions on them, and passed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change by military force, all because of his certainty that Iraq had not disarmed and was a continuing threat. Let’s not pretend he had doubts about “hard evidence,” because he didn’t profess any — and besides, the left didn’t bother to ask for any hard evidence back then, anyway — after all, Clinton was a Democrat, so his word was good enough!

  17. 17.

    Blue Neponset

    November 16, 2005 at 12:48 pm

    Mac,

    Why didn’t Clinton invade Iraq if it was such a danger to us?

  18. 18.

    KC

    November 16, 2005 at 12:49 pm

    Well, John, I hate to say it, but I think it already is gaining traction. And, I think some of the reason is because, maybe, the administration wasn’t completely forthright about what it knew. I think Fred Kaplan pretty much nails the argument on the head in this article in Slate.

  19. 19.

    Steve

    November 16, 2005 at 12:52 pm

    passed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change by military force

    Didn’t we cover this the other day? You will be hard-pressed to show how the Iraq Liberation Act calls for the use of military force.

  20. 20.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 12:53 pm

    No sale. Clinton dropped 10,000 tons of ordnance on Iraq, held killer sanctions on them, and passed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change by military force,

    Don’t try to mislead us. It didn’t work yesterday and it won’t today. Read the whole act and show us where it calls for our military force. It doesn’t. As a matter of fact it does the exact opposite.

    SEC. 8. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

    Nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize or otherwise speak to the use of United States Armed Forces (except as provided in section 4(a)(2)) in carrying out this Act .

    SEC. 4. ASSISTANCE TO SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ.

    (a) AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE ASSISTANCE- The President may provide to the Iraqi democratic opposition organizations designated in accordance with section 5 the following assistance:

    (1) BROADCASTING ASSISTANCE- (A) Grant assistance to such organizations for radio and television broadcasting by such organizations to Iraq.

    (B) There is authorized to be appropriated to the United States Information Agency $2,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 to carry out this paragraph.

    (2) MILITARY ASSISTANCE- (A) The President is authorized to direct the drawdown of defense articles from the stocks of the Department of Defense, defense services of the Department of Defense, and military education and training for such organizations.

    (B) The aggregate value (as defined in section 644(m) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961) of assistance provided under this paragraph may not exceed $97,000,000.

  21. 21.

    M.A.

    November 16, 2005 at 12:54 pm

    Congressmen, however, find it near-impossible to “sacrifice the last leader.” They are invested in the Party Name, and historically haven’t been willing to criticize widely their last guy. Add to this the fact that the last leader’s wife is a powerful Senator the frontrunner for the 2008 nomination. You think they want her as an enemy right about now?

    Buuuut…. the evil obstructionist anti-American Dems are basically doing exactly that. Hell, next time the opportunity arises you’ll be yelling about how they’re anti-war and therefore killing Da Troops every time they open their Dirty Democrat mouths.

    The Democrats are slowly but surely distancing themselves from the pro-war, cooperate-with-Republicans mentality that led them to trust Bush with the power to make war (a power he shouldn’t have been trusted with). In doing so, they’re also distancing themselves from Clintonism, and hurting Hillary’s chances in 2008 (because she’s still portraying herself as a hawk). While the political Right is still fixated on Clinton, normal people are moving on and facing the current reality: the Democrats are to blame for letting Bush screw up, but the guys who actually did the screwing up deserve to bear the brunt of the blame (just as Clinton, Reagan, Bush I, Carter, et al bear the brunt of the blame for stuff that went wrong on their watch).

  22. 22.

    neil

    November 16, 2005 at 12:57 pm

    What, -another- post about how it’s OK to lie? Jesus, what an auspicious start for Pajamas Media. No wonder they had Judy Miller keynoting.

  23. 23.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:02 pm

    I doubt the Clinton Administarion ever called Saddam an imminent or an immediate threat.

    Irrelevant. The “lie” the Democrats speak of isn’t that he was an “immediate threat” — it’s about intel regarding Iraq’s possession of WMD. If Saddam had been found with WMD, no one would be arguing with the basis for war.

    Clinton said Iraq was a WMD “threat,” I know. What qualifier he put on it is kind of pointless, since he ordered 10,000 tons of ordnance dropped on Iraq in 1998-99, kept the killer sanctions on, despite the fact that we knew it had killed half a million Iraqi kids while Saddam built palaces (Albright’s “We think the price is worth it”), and passed the Iraqi Liberation Act.

    Those are not the actions of a man unsure of whether Saddam had violated WMD agreements. For Clinton’s actions to be “worth the price,” the grave threat from Saddam was a given.

    So who was “lying” to the Democrats from 1997-2000, and who will be the first Senator to say it?

  24. 24.

    Pb

    November 16, 2005 at 1:03 pm

    Clinton used the threat of military action as a tool to make sure that the inspections continued–this is called ‘brinkmanship’. He backed this threat up with force when he had to–a paltry amount of force. Sure, some people wanted him to invade Iraq, but he didn’t.

    Bush invaded Iraq to make sure that the inspections stopped, before they revealed too much evidence that Iraq wasn’t actually a threat, like he said it was–this is called ‘criminal’. Oh, and you remember those people who wanted Clinton to invade Iraq back in early 1998? They included Bush’s current secretary of defense (and his old deputy, now head of the world bank), his deputy secretary of state, his ambassador to the UN, and even Bill Bennett, of all people.

  25. 25.

    ppGaz

    November 16, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    The Democrats are toast when the public finds out how they misled us and bamboozled us into a war that turned into a quagmire.

    Will we get apologies from the Hate America crowd on the left? I am not holding my breath.

  26. 26.

    M.A.

    November 16, 2005 at 1:06 pm

    Irrelevant. The “lie” the Democrats speak of isn’t that he was an “immediate threat”—it’s about intel regarding Iraq’s possession of WMD. If Saddam had been found with WMD, no one would be arguing with the basis for war.

    Sure they would. The argument was not just that Saddam had WMD, but that he was likely to give WMDs to terrorists, and that his WMDs were dangerous enough that he posed a real threat to America. The idea was that we couldn’t pussy-foot around with Saddam any more; we had to take him out right now or Americans would be in danger of dying at his hands.

    Even if Saddam had still had a few chemical weapons programs around, the other stuff would still have been made-up crap peddled by the Bush administration to scare people into supporting the war. The fact that everything they said turned out to be wrong was a surprise; the fact that some of what they were saying was a lie was obvious at the time.

  27. 27.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 1:15 pm

    Mac your posts are not more than apologetic bullshit. The Clinton Administartion didn’t hype the threat and then take us to war. The Bush Admin did. End of story.

    Argue with 57% of America for all I care. The number is only going to grow.

  28. 28.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:19 pm

    Why didn’t Clinton invade Iraq if it was such a danger to us?

    My opinion? Primarily, because it’s the riskiest thing a politician can do, and Clinton is a first and foremost a politician. Invasion and democratization are huge jobs, and the short-term successes are not a given. It was easy to talk about how we’d do it in the Iraq Liberation Act, but actually doing it? Second, look at Clinton’s life story — you think he was personally a big fan of “boots on the ground?” Third, the threat to the US didn’t seem as immediate because, in 2000, we had never been devastated by foreign terrorists on our soil before.

    He was taking baby steps, each bigger than the last — sanctions, Iraq Liberation Act, bombings, fomenting internal rebellion in Iraq — hoping never to have to do the politically risky thing. He had to know full well that the only way to fulfill the mandate of the ILA was to put soldiers in Baghdad, but I think he was hoping that those decisions would be left to the next guy, or the next next guy.

  29. 29.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:23 pm

    It didn’t work yesterday and it won’t today. Read the whole act and show us where it calls for our military force.

    Save your whining for every other issue. I didn’t say “our” military force. We were arming and funding rebel groups within Iraq.

  30. 30.

    SaveFarris

    November 16, 2005 at 1:26 pm

    because they (the Bushies) were the ones who were actually in charge.

    How quickly we forget: the Senate was under Democratic control in 2002.

  31. 31.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 1:30 pm

    passed the Iraq Liberation Act calling for regime change by military force

    But not by AMERICAN military force.

    Next purposely distorted half-truth, please, Mac…

  32. 32.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:31 pm

    Mac your posts are not more than apologetic bullshit. The Clinton Administartion didn’t hype the threat and then take us to war. The Bush Admin did. End of story.

    Look DV, I understand why you, as a rabid partisan Democrat, would want to forget that Clinton ever insisted that Saddam be ousted from his thrones because of his possession of WMD. I really do. I’m just not sympathetic with how you feel compelled to lie about it, pretend it never happened, and rewrite the history books to pretend that no Democrat President had ever thought it was worth ousting Saddam by force because of the WMD threat he posed.

    And, the Clinton Administration didn’t “hype the threat?” They did, if you believe the Duelfer report! What were they bombing in 1998, anyway? According to Deulfer, it was empty buildings!

  33. 33.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:34 pm

    Sure they would. The argument was not just that Saddam had WMD, but that he was likely to give WMDs to terrorists, and that his WMDs were dangerous enough that he posed a real threat to America.

    OK, you are correct in that, some Democrats would’ve still whined about Bush’s “lies,” even if we’d found tons of anthrax in Saddam’s kitchen. The Dems are that insanely partisan, I’ll grant you. They would’ve been laughed out of town, but they still would’ve complained.

    We went looking for WMD, not addresses of terrorists to sell WMD to, or missiles that would reach New York.

  34. 34.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 1:35 pm

    Save your whining for every other issue. I didn’t say “our” military force. We were arming and funding rebel groups within Iraq.

    Save your dishonesty. Your whole reason for the wording of that post was to mislead people into thinking that. It’s you and the leadership of your party to the core.

  35. 35.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 1:37 pm

    I’m just not sympathetic with how you feel compelled to lie about it, pretend it never happened, and rewrite the history books

    You must have been President of your High School A/V club. You get an A for projecionism.

  36. 36.

    M.A.

    November 16, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    “because they (the Bushies) were the ones who were actually in charge”

    How quickly we forget: the Senate was under Democratic control in 2002.

    And the White House was under Bush’s control (sort of). He’s the President. He’s in charge. He gets the accolades when things go right, and the brickbats when things go wrong. Why is this a difficult concept for you?

  37. 37.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 1:38 pm

    and rewrite the history books to pretend that no Democrat President had ever thought it was worth ousting Saddam by force because of the WMD threat he posed

    Another gem from Mac.

    Sorry, but REAL history books usually stay away from commenting on what the ‘thoughts’ of a historical figure were (until mind-reading becomes a science).

    The salient point is that regardless of the fact that Clinton may have thought Saddam posed a threat or even thought he should have been removed from power his actions indicate that his official view was that Saddam could be contained and didn’t warrant a full-scale invasion.

    Next purposely distorted half-truth, please, Mac…

  38. 38.

    neil

    November 16, 2005 at 1:42 pm

    Oh, and since this post is humor, it behooves me to respond humorously.

    This should be a fun election coming up, with the Democrats’ slogan being:
    Sure, we said all that stuff, and we really believed it, too! But you can’t blame us, we were lied to!

    and the Republican’s slogan being:
    You can’t trust the Democrats on national security — we lied to them and they believed us!

  39. 39.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:44 pm

    But not by AMERICAN military force.

    Next purposely distorted half-truth, please, Mac…

    It’s not a half-truth — it’s exactly as I said. It’s simply more evidence that even Clinton knew that the ouster of Saddam (that Clinton himself called for) was going to come on the end of a bayonet, not by asking Saddam pretty please. Clinton chose internal rebels, which didn’t do any good for anyone but the Iraqi mass-grave diggers. So what was the next logical step-up? UN multinational forces, which Bush tried, until he discovered that the French, Russians, and Germans were in Saddam’s pockets up their elbows. So what was next? Putting together our own coalition, which expelled Saddam.

    This is all a policy continuum to achieve the worthy objective of the Clinton Administration, but I know that most Democrats are either too dishonest, too cowardly, or too ashamed to admit it, so they pretend that history started in 2000.

    Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

    The United States favors an Iraq that offers its people freedom at home. I categorically reject arguments that this is unattainable due to Iraq’s history or its ethnic or sectarian make-up. Iraqis deserve and desire freedom like everyone else.

  40. 40.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    Save your dishonesty. Your whole reason for the wording of that post was to mislead people into thinking that. It’s you and the leadership of your party to the core.

    Your mind-reader is off, Mike. Change the batteries.

  41. 41.

    ppGaz

    November 16, 2005 at 1:46 pm

    You can’t trust the Democrats on national security—we lied to them and they believed us!

    Exactly. The gullibility of Democrats in this matter is just one more example of why they can’t be trusted on matters of national security. Americans will always choose leaders to tell them what they need to hear, whether it is true or not. That’s what a strong, confident leader does. We don’t need leaders who look at the pile of rubble from 911 and decide to start sending out questionnaires. We need answers.

  42. 42.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:47 pm

    Sorry, but REAL history books usually stay away from commenting on what the ‘thoughts’ of a historical figure were (until mind-reading becomes a science).

    I guess that’s why Clinton published the Iraq Liberation Act and his thoughts on it, so you wouldn’t have to read his mind.

    Seriously, are you this dense, or pretending?

  43. 43.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 1:49 pm

    Your mind-reader is off, Mike. Change the batteries.

    Bull. You got caught and are trying to back track. Don’t bother applying for Scotty’ job. You’re lousy at it..

  44. 44.

    Andrei

    November 16, 2005 at 1:50 pm

    who will be the first Senator to say that Clinton “lied” about Iraq’s WMD first?

    Oh good lord… It’s amazing to me just how much people need to relive the glory years of Clinton in charge. Give it up already Buckets…. your fetish with Clinton is laughable.

    Clinton didn’t INVADE Iraq. End of story. Done. Finished. Caput. Fini.

    Over already.

    Do you spend this much time ponderig over past girlfriends too, ones that left you SIX YEARS AGO?

    And for others, stop encouraging this talking point. It’s bullshit. The current post is about how much the Dems current strategy will work by stating they weren’t given enough intel to make an informed vote. One I have always felt was a poor move on their part since they should have known better not to give Bush a blank check in the first place.

    Back on topic please. Let the troll feed on his own tail.

  45. 45.

    M.A.

    November 16, 2005 at 1:51 pm

    Let me be clear on what the U.S. objectives are: The United States wants Iraq to rejoin the family of nations as a freedom-loving and law-abiding member. This is in our interest and that of our allies within the region.

    Particularly our ally Iran, which is tickled pink at what’s gone on since 2002.

  46. 46.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 1:51 pm

    Look DV, I understand why you, as a rabid partisan Democrat, would want to forget that Clinton ever insisted that Saddam be ousted from his thrones because of his possession of WMD. I really do. I’m just not sympathetic with how you feel compelled to lie about it, pretend it never happened, and rewrite the history books to pretend that no Democrat President had ever thought it was worth ousting Saddam by force because of the WMD threat he posed.

    Lol. You really are a fucking idiot, Mac. I’m an independent voter who leans libertarian, shit-fer-brains.

    I even supported the Iraq war at first. Once I found out I was lied to I turned against the war.

  47. 47.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:52 pm

    Bull. You got caught and are trying to back track. Don’t bother applying for Scotty’ job. You’re lousy at it..

    I tried to give you the benefit ouf the doubt, I used a whole post to tell you why I made that point about force, but now I’ve come to the conclusion that you are a witless moron. Someone on your level can’t possibly tell what someone on my level was thinking, if you can’t even read it when I post it. So don’t even try.

  48. 48.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 1:57 pm

    Clinton didn’t INVADE Iraq. End of story. Done. Finished. Caput. Fini.

    Gosh, no kidding! You realize that this is totally irrelevant to the question of why Clinton “lied” to the Democrats for three years, right? How many more times must you post drivel before you get the idea that I’m not impressed? You can say “End of story” in 50 different languages — it doesn’t make your post any more salient.

  49. 49.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 2:02 pm

    Maximus

    You are simply full of shit, patheticly bad at lying and a perfect example of the New Republican Party.

    I stay off your “level” at all costs. The last thing I need is shit up to my eyebrows.

  50. 50.

    M.A.

    November 16, 2005 at 2:02 pm

    Gosh, no kidding! You realize that this is totally irrelevant to the question of why Clinton “lied” to the Democrats for three years, right?

    Maybe he did lie. A real investigation into manipulation of pre-war intelligence might reveal that Clinton lied. Why on earth do you think Bush, and Bush/Cheney puppets like Pat Roberts, don’t want such an investigation, to tarnish the image of their hated predecessor?

    The Democrats are saying, let’s have an investigation and let the chips fall where they may. Bush/Cheney are saying: no more investigations. I think I have to assume that Bush/Cheney aren’t blocking investigations for fear of exposing Clinton’s lies to the world….

  51. 51.

    cd6

    November 16, 2005 at 2:03 pm

    Keep it up Mac!!! I love your posts, none of these guys are as smart as you!!!

    Sure all that WMD stuff was wrong, but we all know the *real* reason Saddam was a threat was because Clinton said he was, back sometime in the 90’s.

    Good thing we have patriots like you to make sure terrorist sympathizers like these can’t rewrite history.

  52. 52.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 2:04 pm

    I even supported the Iraq war at first. Once I found out I was lied to I turned against the war.

    Suuuure, you were. And I was a Deaniac.

    Your blog was the one that said something like “Olbermann is God” and “I disagree with Bush on every issue,” last year, right? How could I mistake you for a partisan Democrat? My apologies.

  53. 53.

    ppGaz

    November 16, 2005 at 2:06 pm

    Sen Hagel and Kevin Drum Nail It

    This post by Drum absolutely nails it. When you fucking Bushmonkeys, and frieds of Bushmonkeys (JC?) are sitting around wondering why the poll numbers are headed south faster than a goose in December, and why those pesky lefties are so keen to put pies in your faces, go back and read this Drum article again and again until you get it.

    You, and those lying potatoheads, should be ashamed of yourselves.

    This is me, not imitating DougJ. You Bushmonkeys absolutely suck. You’ve degraded this country.

  54. 54.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 2:12 pm

    Your blog was the one that said something like “Olbermann is God”

    Uhh bc Olbermann is god. He is by far the best reporter on any cable news show that isn’t afraid to question our leaders motivations. What more could you ask for.

    “I disagree with Bush on every issue,” last year, right?

    I said nearly ever issue I believe. And I do. Bush is far removed from libertarian ideals. Just because he gives some fucking tax-cuts doesn’t make him my candidate.

    How could I mistake you for a partisan Democrat?

    Well considering that my profile, which is right up in the corner tells you that I’m an independent who’s philosophy most closely resembles the libertarian one how could you?

    You know what your problem is Mac? It is that you buy into this whole misguided belief that it is only Democrats and liberals who vehemetly oppose this administration. Sadly you are very wrong. Libertarians, line myself, can’t stand this Administration because they are extremists. You may not think so, but that is because you have your head up the GOP’s ass.

    On just about all of the major issues libertarians are at odds with Bush. Whether it be the Iraq War, fiscal policy, or, our civil liberties Bush is a major disaster.

  55. 55.

    ppGaz

    November 16, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    Bush is a major disaster.

    History will record that this turned out to be one of the great understatements of all time.

  56. 56.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 2:15 pm

    The Democrats are saying, let’s have an investigation and let the chips fall where they may. Bush/Cheney are saying: no more investigations. I think I have to assume that Bush/Cheney aren’t blocking investigations for fear of exposing Clinton’s lies to the world….

    Of course, the Democrats want an investigation, because the sitting party always loses the PR battle! Duh! I’m not sure what Bush or Cheney have said about Phase Two (link?), but we had investigations already, and they were a partisan farce. One side yells “innocent,” the other yells “whitewash,” and everyone says they’ll do better.

  57. 57.

    cd6

    November 16, 2005 at 2:22 pm

    History will record that this turned out to be one of the great understatements of all time.

    Until history is rewritten by white house stenographers, and then just shows that Bush had a mean bowling game and Laura’s pound cake was to die for

  58. 58.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 2:22 pm

    You know what your problem is Mac? It is that you buy into this whole misguided belief that it is only Democrats and liberals who vehemetly oppose this administration.

    Nonsense. But I’d wager the “Olbermann is God and Disagree with Bush on Almost Every Issue”-to-“Democrats and Liberals” correlation is very, very high. You can see how I’d make a linkage.

  59. 59.

    ppGaz

    November 16, 2005 at 2:24 pm

    One side yells “innocent,” the other yells “whitewash,” and everyone says they’ll do better.

    Well, we know one side that won’t do better.

    “Brownie, you’re doin’ a heck of a job”

    “Mission Accomplished”

    “I really am not that concerned with (OBL) right now”

    “Bring it On”

    “The insurgency is in its last throes”

    “Nobody could have anticipated ….”

    “If people in my administration leaked ….”

    “The dictator of Iraq is not disarming ….”

  60. 60.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 2:27 pm

    Well, we know one side that won’t do better.

    So now I’ll go through all the ridiculous things the Democrats have done, and all their scandals, and I’ll say that they can’t do better, and we’re even?

    No, thanks, that game is for kids.

  61. 61.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 2:39 pm

    Nonsense. But I’d wager the “Olbermann is God and Disagree with Bush on Almost Every Issue”-to-”Democrats and Liberals” correlation is very, very high. You can see how I’d make a linkage.

    I can see how you would think that. Like I said. You think the people who vehemently oppose this Administration are Dems or liberals.

    Hell, I’d willing to bet that you think the majority of libertarians support the Republicans over the Democrats still. While that may have been true pre-Bush, it isn’t true anymore. I can’t speak for all libertarians, but from the polls I’ve seen the majority have a more favorable view of Democrats than the Republicans.

  62. 62.

    Davebo

    November 16, 2005 at 2:40 pm

    If you want to try to gauge just how much trouble the Bush administration and the GOP is in right now this thread would be perfect.

    You’ve devolved into complaining that we are in a quagmire war now because Democrats didn’t stop Bush from taking us into a quagmire war.

    Not sure how well that will sell come next November but I certainly hope the GOP gives it a try.

  63. 63.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 2:42 pm

    So now I’ll go through all the ridiculous things the Democrats have done, and all their scandals, and I’ll say that they can’t do better, and we’re even?

    Well, considering the majority of the Democratic scandals that Republican hucksters like you cling to are relatively benign by comparison, it is no wonder you are unwilling to do so.

    “But Ted Kennedy drove an innocent woman off a bridge!”

    Yeah, and President Bush drove this country off a fucking cliff.

  64. 64.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 2:43 pm

    So now I’ll go through all the ridiculous things the Democrats have done, and all their scandals, and I’ll say that they can’t do better, and we’re even?

    No, thanks, that game is for kids.

    So says the guy who begins every post with “B-b-b-but Clinton…!!!”

  65. 65.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 2:53 pm

    I can see how you would think that. Like I said. You think the people who vehemently oppose this Administration are Dems or liberals.

    No, it honestly has more to do with the “Olbermann is God” thing… and how in your first post here you used a badly irrelevant point to defend Bill Clinton.

  66. 66.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 2:55 pm

    You’ve devolved into complaining that we are in a quagmire war now because Democrats didn’t stop Bush from taking us into a quagmire war.

    Who’s doing that?

  67. 67.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 2:58 pm

    Well, considering the majority of the Democratic scandals that Republican hucksters like you cling to are relatively benign by comparison, it is no wonder you are unwilling to do so.

    You’re funny, but not intentionally. Look at what you’ve said: Because I’m unwilling to play Ppg’s game of “huckster” rhetoric, it’s an admission of something? I’ll leave the silly games to silly people.

  68. 68.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 3:02 pm

    So says the guy who begins every post with “B-b-b-but Clinton…”

    Witless, mindless rhetoric.

    If you want to make yourself useful, you can tell me how documenting recent history to show a continuum of policy through two administrations and to disprove this notion that Democrats were Jedi-mind-tricked into thinking Saddam had WMD is some sort of child’s game.

    Teaching the brainwashed your history isn’t easy, and it damn sure isn’t child’s play.

  69. 69.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 3:06 pm

    No, it honestly has more to do with the “Olbermann is God” thing… and how in your first post here you used a badly irrelevant point to defend Bill Clinton.

    How the hell did I defend Bill Clinton by pointing out the fact that they didn’t hype intelligence in order to take us to war with Iraq? Give me a break.

    By the way, even though 57% of America believes the Bush Administration deliberately misled us into war, the number who believe otherwise isn’t 43%.

    The number of people who believe we were not misled into war is a measley 35%–would would be the GOP’s base.

    So how does it feel to be part of 35% still grasping to the bullshit you were fed?

  70. 70.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 3:07 pm

    *would would = which would

  71. 71.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 3:13 pm

    You’re funny, but not intentionally.

    The feeling is mutual. You have proven to be a regular laugh-riot for me, second only to Darrell.

    Look at what you’ve said: Because I’m unwilling to play Ppg’s game of “huckster” rhetoric, it’s an admission of something?

    But you do play the game of huckster rhetoric – just only when it suits you and is of your own volition.

    If you want to make yourself useful, you can tell me how documenting recent history to show a continuum of policy through two administrations and to disprove this notion that Democrats were Jedi-mind-tricked into thinking Saddam had WMD is some sort of child’s game.

    If you want to make yourself useful, you can tell me how Bush’s military intervention in Iraq followed a continuum of policy through two administrations to prove the notion that Republicans were just picking up where Clinton left off – despite the fact that Clinton had no policy for invading Iraq and deposing Saddam with the American military.

    Comparing apples to oranges is a child’s game, and you are one of its most valuable players.

    Sounds like a child’s game to me.

  72. 72.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 3:14 pm

    Strike that last line.

  73. 73.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 3:18 pm

    If you want to make yourself useful, you can tell me how documenting recent history to show a continuum of policy through two administrations and to disprove this notion that Democrats were Jedi-mind-tricked into thinking Saddam had WMD is some sort of child’s game.

    I would, but why bother? You’ve had it pointed out to you several times that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act explicitly rejected the idea of American force and instead called for regime change by other means, and yet you still parrot the idiotic idea that the ILA called for the invasion of Iraq. You’ve shown a willful ignorance that makes me suspect you’ve been taken over by Doug J, because no one can be that intentionally stupid.

    There is no continuum of policy here, period. If there were a continuum of policy, then Bill Clinton would’ve led the invasion of Iraq back in 1998. Instead, he used air strikes to knock Saddam down and then relied on inspections and a containment policy to keep Saddam from becoming more of a threat. And it worked.

    You can dismiss the idea that Democrats were deceived or lied to, but the evidence is stunningly clear to anyone who doesn’t have his head up Bush’s ass.

    Two thirds of the American people believe that the administration was not on the up-and-up. Please feel free to keep insulting them as radical kooks. It’s just going to drive more people away from you and your kind.

  74. 74.

    Jorge

    November 16, 2005 at 3:37 pm

    MacBucket –

    What about Hans Blix? Hans Blix went into Iraq with the very best intel the US had and found it to be completely and totally incorrect.

    In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq liberation act. And he believed Iraq had chemical weapons. So we bombed Iraq to high heaven and completely and totally finished wiping out their WMD stocks. But we had no cofirmation. That is until early 2003. Hans Blix changed the equation.

    And before anyone tries to smear Blix – He was right. He was dead on right. He asked for just a few months to finish the inspections and Bush pulled him out of Iraq. So, when you compare Bush’s decisions and use of intelligence to Clinton’s I am automatically drawn to the Hans Blix factor. You talk about taking action and Bush’s courage. Well, that kind of courage can also be seen as foolishness and recklessness. We aren’t talking about a coach going for two to win the game instead of kicking the extra point for over time. We are talking about a completely close minded President and presidential team that made up their mind to go to war at least 5 years before the invasion and who did everything possible to convince the American people that the war was completely necessary – including cherry picking intelligence and discrediting those that had information that did not support their goals. How can anyone support that?

  75. 75.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 3:40 pm

    So how does it feel to be part of 35% still grasping to the bullshit you were fed?

    So polls determine who is right and who is wrong, now? I guess we were right to invade Iraq, then, since 60% of the people were in favor in 2003. There. Case closed. I guess Saddam really did do 9/11, because (we were told be the left) that the people (although the left usually called them idiots) thought it was so.

    Polls only show whose message is getting out the loudest, and until this week, only the Democrat rhetoric was getting out.

    You want to know who’s getting lied to today? Anyone who believes that these poor, naive, ignorant Congressmen were fooled by Bush into thinking that Saddam had WMD. And how do we know that it’s a lie? Because their statements about Saddam’s WMD threat are on record, in print since 1997, when Bush was still in Texas.

    So is Bush a time-travelling hypnotist, going back in time to make Senators Levin, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi, etc., say that we needed to oust Saddam because of his WMDs?

    Who’s buying their excuse-making? Who’s a dupe?

  76. 76.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 3:44 pm

    In 1998, Clinton signed the Iraq liberation act. And he believed Iraq had chemical weapons. So we bombed Iraq to high heaven and completely and totally finished wiping out their WMD stocks. But we had no cofirmation.

    That’s just a total, utter lie. There is nothing truthful about it. I hope you are just ignorant of history, and not repeating something you heard from anyone in authority. Not even Bill Clinton himself believes it, which should give you saome indication (although you probably think you know better than he does, right?). This is the exact type of regurgitated, rewritten history that Bush is talking about. Congratulations for making his point.

  77. 77.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 3:44 pm

    You want to know who’s getting lied to today? Anyone who believes that these poor, naive, ignorant Congressmen were fooled by Bush into thinking that Saddam had WMD. And how do we know that it’s a lie? Because their statements about Saddam’s WMD threat are on record, in print since 1997, when Bush was still in Texas.

    So you’re saying these congressmen believed back in 1997 everything that the Bush team insisted was true in 2002-2003? That Iraq had reconstituted its nuclear program? That the “smoking gun would come in the form of a mushroom cloud”? That Saddam had drones that could drop chemical weapons on our cities?

    Who’s a dupe?

    I’d have to say you.

  78. 78.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 3:45 pm

    If you want to make yourself useful, you can tell me how Bush’s military intervention in Iraq followed a continuum of policy through two administrations

    Already done, upthread.

  79. 79.

    cd6

    November 16, 2005 at 3:51 pm

    Listen you dunderhead

    If some senators say in 1997 “Hey maybe Saddam has WMDs” its not a big deal because nobody was using that as a justification to invade the country. Who knows whether or not they were right, because nobody cared enough to check. We certainly didn’t have the resources in place on the ground in Iraq to verify those statements.

    Once Bushy shows up and decides guess what, we ARE going to invade Iraq, well then I’d say he’s obligated to be damn certain Saddam DOES have WMDs. And since Saddam didn’t have them, it’s pretty clear that Bush didn’t do his job well. Saying “well Democrats thought he did 5 years ago” doesn’t cut it.

  80. 80.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 3:53 pm

    Already done, upthread.

    I know you are a legend in your own mind, but I fail to see how your ramblings make the case. Aside from both administrations being committed to the concept of Saddam being removed from power, Clinton believed in containment and the ability for the Iraqis to overthrow Saddam themselves while Bush believed in pre-emptive warfare in response to a perceived imminent gathering threat and the ability of Americans to overthrow Saddam.

    I understand apples and oranges are both fruits, but how are these congruent policies?

  81. 81.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 3:55 pm

    would, but why bother? You’ve had it pointed out to you several times that the 1998 Iraqi Liberation Act explicitly rejected the idea of American force and instead called for regime change by other means,and yet you still parrot the idiotic idea that the ILA called for the invasion of Iraq.

    Either you can’t read, or you’re lying. I never said such a thing, because it’s not true. The ILA didn’t authorize American invasion in that Act, opting to arm and fund Iraqis to rebel against and hopefully depose Saddam. Again, all it accomplished was adding a few more bodies to the mass graves.

    The ILA just was another step-up in the continuing effort to oust Saddam and replace him with a democratic government. Clinton tried escalating tactics, and the last step-up he tried was fomenting internal rebellion. What is the logical next step-up when that failed? UN forces to forcefully depose Saddam. When that failed, what was the next step-up? A US-led coalition to forcefully depose Saddam.

    So it was another step, as I showed before, in the continuum of policy to achieve Clinton’s worthy goal in the ILA — Saddam out, and a democracy in.

  82. 82.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 3:55 pm

    This is the exact type of regurgitated, rewritten history that Bush is talking about. Congratulations for making his point.

    The irony of Bush complaining about revisionist history is so big it should make his head explode.

    “We invaded Iraq because they might nuke us …. wait, we invaded Iraq because they had a tie to al Qaeda … wait, wait, we invaded Iraq because they had WMDs…. no? um, we invaded Iraq to spread democracy across the globe!”

    Mac, what’s the weather like on Bizarro World?

  83. 83.

    cd6

    November 16, 2005 at 3:56 pm

    If we go back even earlier, we have Bush 41’s policy of “removing Saddam would leave a disstabilized power vaccuum in Iraq, most likely leading to civil war”

    If Bush is just copying the work of his predecessors, where was he on this one?

  84. 84.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 3:58 pm

    The ILA just was another step-up in the continuing effort to oust Saddam and replace him with a democratic government. Clinton tried escalating tactics, and the last step-up he tried was fomenting internal rebellion. What is the logical next step-up when that failed? UN forces to forcefully depose Saddam. When that failed, what was the next step-up? A US-led coalition to forcefully depose Saddam.

    Get a dictionary. “Continuum” means a continuing, ongoing process in which there’s no difference between one aspect and the others. Admitting that Bush’s invasion was “the next step” means the two administration’s policies were not a continuum.

    If there were a continuum — if Clinton agreed wholeheartedly with Bush about the threat posed by Iraq and thought we should’ve invaded — then why didn’t he do so?

  85. 85.

    Jorge

    November 16, 2005 at 3:58 pm

    “That’s just a total, utter lie. There is nothing truthful about it. I hope you are just ignorant of history, and not repeating something you heard from anyone in authority. Not even Bill Clinton himself believes it, which should give you saome indication (although you probably think you know better than he does, right?). This is the exact type of regurgitated, rewritten history that Bush is talking about. Congratulations for making his point.”

    Huh? The 1998 bombing campaing destroyed the remains of WMD’s. But we had no confirmation. We did not know we had wiped it out. Until Hans Blix came along in 2003 and went to the “sure fire” sites and couldn’t find anything.

    So tell me, how am I lying? And I notice that you incapable of dealing with any mention of Hans Blix and 2003. Why? And rememebr – Hans Blix was right.

  86. 86.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 4:02 pm

    So it was another step, as I showed before, in the continuum of policy to achieve Clinton’s worthy goal in the ILA —Saddam out, and a democracy in.

    Step 1 (Clinton): Encourage and support a coup in Iraq
    Step 3 (Bush): Invade Iraq and effect a coup in Iraq

    I suppose where I get hung up on your ‘continuum’ of policy, Mac, is the all important Step 2 that somehow magically bridges the two together.

    I await your riveting analysis with bated breath.

  87. 87.

    cd6

    November 16, 2005 at 4:03 pm

    Hans Blix was a partisan hack in Iraq at the behest of the liberal mainstream media, and on the payroll of George Soros.

    Or something

  88. 88.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 4:05 pm

    Get a dictionary. “Continuum” means a continuing, ongoing process in which there’s no difference between one aspect and the others.

    Careful, Otto. Mac hates the dictionary (or thesaurus) being used against him, and will only embrace its use when he can forward his argument with it.

    Why, just the other day, he was insisting that ‘imminent’ and ‘gathering’ are not synonymous terms…

  89. 89.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 4:09 pm

    Hans Blix was right.

    And Scott Ritter. And Mohamed ElBaradei of the IAEA. Well, pretty much everyone who got their evidence on their own, instead of trusting the Bush administration to present a fair and balanced presentation of the evidence, caveats and all.

    Funny how that worked out.

  90. 90.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:11 pm

    If some senators say in 1997 “Hey maybe Saddam has WMDs” its not a big deal because nobody was using that as a justification to invade the country.

    Heh, I love how you guys always add “maybe,” like they never said they were sure Saddam had WMD. You just can’t be honest with yourselves for a second! Hilarious!

    Ok. Do any of you people know the difference between rationale and action? This entire argument on this thread is about rationale — who “lied” or mislead to convince Congress that Saddam had WMD — and not a bit about what actions were taken because of the “lie.” Understood?

    So why don’t the Democratic Senators come out and say, “Up until 2001, President Clinton lied/mislead us poor, naive, ignorant innocents into thinking that Saddam had WMD. Then, starting in 2001, Bush lied/mislead us into thinking that Saddam had WMD.” I mean, we’d hope that the reason they never said this is that they are adults capable of being “responsible for their own votes,” but obviously that appears to be too much for Democratic congressmen.

    Why don’t they say that Clinton lied to them from 1997-2000? Because this is a 100% partisan effort to get them out of their votes to go to war, so they can more easily blame the war entirely on Bush in the next election. So, as in any 100% partisan lie-campaign, any Democrat who “lied” gets a pass.

    So now it’s up to the GOP to get the word out that, according to documented history, these Democrats have said since 1997 that Saddam had WMD, they bombed Iraq in 1998-1999 because they thought Saddam had WMD, they supported sanctions on Iraq because they thought Saddam had WMD, and they passed the ILA because they thought Saddam had WMD. It’s up to the GOP to prove these whining Democrats are liars. We’ll see if the media lets them.

    Once Bushy shows up and decides guess what, we ARE going to invade Iraq, well then I’d say he’s obligated to be damn certain Saddam DOES have WMDs.

    But to bomb, sanction, pass the ILA, and foment internal rebellion to oust Saddam, Clinton could just be going on a hunch, right? Yeah, I see where you stand. Certainty is only required of Republicans — you all took Clinton’s word for it, because he was a Democrat.

  91. 91.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:12 pm

    Why, just the other day, he was insisting that ‘imminent’ and ‘gathering’ are not synonymous terms…

    Didn’t you learn anything from that lesson I posted from thesaurus.com? If you did, answer this: Do the words “gathering” and “imminent” mean the same thing?

  92. 92.

    cd6

    November 16, 2005 at 4:17 pm

    haha ok here you go

    But to bomb, sanction, pass the ILA, and foment internal rebellion to oust Saddam, Clinton could just be going on a hunch, right? Yeah, I see where you stand. Certainty is only required of Republicans—you all took Clinton’s word for it, because he was a Democrat.

    How many american soldiers died bombing Iraq? Wait, none? ok
    Well then how many died sanctioning Saddam? Zero again?
    Passing the ILA? Formenting rebellion? None and none?

    So you get the inherent difference between any of those actions and what Bush did? The answer is over 2,000 American lives, and god knows what total in billions of dollars

  93. 93.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 4:23 pm

    Didn’t you learn anything from that lesson I posted from thesaurus.com? If you did, answer this: Do the words “gathering” and “imminent” mean the same thing?

    1. I view your “lessons” as being educated to think that 2+2=5.

    2. You lied when you claimed that ‘imminent’ and ‘gathering’ are NOT synonyms. They are.

    3. The terms ‘imminent’ and ‘gathering’ do not have the same definition, however, they are synonymous (and therefore interchangeable) when used to express the same idea.

    Now answer me this: Do you honestly believe half the bullshit that you write?

  94. 94.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:24 pm

    if Clinton agreed wholeheartedly with Bush about the threat posed by Iraq and thought we should’ve invaded—then why didn’t he do so?

    As I showed upthread, Clinton started small and tried escalating steps, starting with supporting sanctions, pressing for new UN Resolutions, passing the ILA, then bombing Iraq, then fomenting rebellion. Each of these escalating steps failed to achieve the goal of replacing Saddam with a democracy (they never had a chance, of course). Either by accident or design, by the time it was evident that fomenting rebellion internally had failed, Clinton was on his way out of office, and the next step-up (a multinational force to remove Saddam) was left to the next guy.

  95. 95.

    Steve

    November 16, 2005 at 4:24 pm

    So it’s simply impossible that any intelligence emerged between 1998 and 2002 to suggest that Saddam no longer had WMDs?

  96. 96.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:26 pm

    Huh? The 1998 bombing campaing destroyed the remains of WMD’s.

    Prove it. It goes against the Duelfer Report (which said there was nothing to bomb), what Clinton said about it (we don’t know what we hit and what we didn’t), and what was targeted in the bombing raids (no dual-use facilities). But try to prove it anyway.

  97. 97.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:28 pm

    Step 1 (Clinton): Encourage and support a coup in Iraq
    Step 3 (Bush): Invade Iraq and effect a coup in Iraq

    I suppose where I get hung up on your ‘continuum’ of policy, Mac, is the all important Step 2 that somehow magically bridges the two together.

    Step Two: Go to the UN and try to get them to enforce their own Resolution. Done.

    Teaching history to you guys is like trying to teach a pig to do calculus.

  98. 98.

    jg

    November 16, 2005 at 4:33 pm

    Teaching history to you guys is like trying to teach a pig to do calculus.

    If your grasp of calculus is the same as your grasp of history I see your point.

  99. 99.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:33 pm

    How many american soldiers died bombing Iraq? Wait, none? ok
    Well then how many died sanctioning Saddam? Zero again?
    Passing the ILA? Formenting rebellion? None and none?

    So as long as it doesn’t cost American lives (because well over half a million Iraqis died due to sanctions and bombings), a President shouldn’t even be asked about his motives, and he is free to lie to whomever. Then just say so — at least we’ll know where you stand. Good luck justifying that to the rest of the world!

  100. 100.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 4:35 pm

    Step Two: Go to the UN and try to get them to enforce their own Resolution. Done.

    Teaching history to you guys is like trying to teach a pig to do calculus.

    Bwahaha!

    So let me get this straight, Mac. According to your version of history, there is a clear policy continuum in the following:

    Step 1 (Clinton): Encourage and support a coup in Iraq
    Step 2 (Bush): Go to the UN and ignore them
    Step 3 (Bush): Invade Iraq and effect a coup in Iraq

    Better leave that pig alone.

  101. 101.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:36 pm

    If your grasp of calculus is the same as your grasp of history I see your point.

    Is that really all you’ve got to add to the discussion? “Better to remain silent…”

  102. 102.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:41 pm

    So let me get this straight, Mac. According to your version of history, there is a clear policy continuum in the following:

    Step 1 (Clinton): Encourage and support a coup in Iraq
    Step 2 (Bush): Go to the UN and ignore them
    Step 3 (Bush): Invade Iraq and effect a coup in Iraq

    Of course there is, if you’d get it right.

    Step Two: Go to the UN twice to try and get an additional Resolution passed that would require UN enforcement.

    When that step failed, because Russia, Germany, and France (who all thought Saddam had WMD) were in Saddam’s pockets, you move to the next step.

    What do you think would be the logical Step Two: Ask Saddam pretty please? Or, give up?

  103. 103.

    cd6

    November 16, 2005 at 4:41 pm

    a President shouldn’t even be asked about his motives, and he is free to lie to whomever

    Yes, that was exactly my point!

    Thanks for responding to my argument with a clear, thought out rebuttal, instead of resorting to debunking an extremely exaggerated point only a complete nitwit would have taken away from my post

  104. 104.

    jg

    November 16, 2005 at 4:44 pm

    Thanks for responding to my argument with a clear, thought out rebuttal, instead of resorting to debunking an extremely exaggerated point only a complete nitwit would have taken away from my post

    A wingnut refuting a point that wasn’t made? Now that NEVER happens. You clearly hate the troops.

  105. 105.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:45 pm

    3. The terms ‘imminent’ and ‘gathering’ do not have the same definition, however, they are synonymous (and therefore interchangeable) when used to express the same idea.

    But they weren’t expressing the same idea, as I showed you with Bush’s own quote, remember? Why must I keep repeating myself? Look, I may just have to accept that you’re a moron, but your lack of retention and comprehension leads me to that conclusion.

  106. 106.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 4:48 pm

    Thanks for responding to my argument with a clear, thought out rebuttal, instead of resorting to debunking an extremely exaggerated point only a complete nitwit would have taken away from my post

    You excuse Clinton’s “Saddam has WMD” rationale by looking at the results of his actions only in terms of American lives lost. That’s exactly what you said. If it makes you uncomfortable to have me boil it down for you, good. You should be uncomfortable spouting nonsense like that.

  107. 107.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 4:50 pm

    But they weren’t expressing the same idea, as I showed you with Bush’s own quote, remember? Why must I keep repeating myself?

    Falsehoods – no matter how many times you repeat them – remain false, and no amount of repetition makes them true.

    I realize that Bush has taught you otherwise, but his tutelage was not made in earnest.

  108. 108.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 4:51 pm

    So polls determine who is right and who is wrong, now? I guess we were right to invade Iraq, then, since 60% of the people were in favor in 2003.

    No i did not say polls determine who is right and wrong. Don’t put words into my mouth. I was merely pointing out that YOUR NUMBERS are dwindling.

    You see, the question was do you think the Bush Admin lied. That poll number has been increasing since the beginning of this war. The trend is what I meant to point out. As time goes on, more and more people feel we were lied to. The funny thing is, you mention the poll of Saddam behind 9/11. Why was that number so high? Hmmm I remember certain people in the Bush Adminstration pushing that belief and you obviously believe it to be false so how come you won’t admit they lied?

    The number of people who think we were lied to will only grow. The trend has been slow, but constant in that direction which is an indication that the did in fact lie and people are slowly, but surely, cathcing on.

  109. 109.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 4:53 pm

    Step Two: Go to the UN twice to try and get an additional Resolution passed that would require UN enforcement.

    When that step failed, because Russia, Germany, and France (who all thought Saddam had WMD) were in Saddam’s pockets, you move to the next step.

    So, Step Two is inconsequential if Bush had no intention of respecting it as part of the process. Never mind the fact that Hans Blix (whom you avoid like the plague) found nothing to substantiate the dog and pony show Powell put on for the UN.

    So explain to me again how this smoothly bridges Clinton’s policies and Bush’s policies on your ‘continuum’.

  110. 110.

    ppGaz

    November 16, 2005 at 4:54 pm

    So now I’ll go through all the ridiculous things

    Rather an inapt comparo. My list of gaffes is the documented fuckups of THIS ADMINISTRATION, the one we have now, the one that is damaging the country NOW, and the one that is still in a position to do more damage.

    In short, the only one that matters right now. The clusterfuck goes on as we speak. The country is being run by lying incompetant boobs, man. While you blather, storm clouds gather.

    It even rhymes.

  111. 111.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 4:56 pm

    What do you think would be the logical Step Two: Ask Saddam pretty please? Or, give up?

    I almost forgot the money question.

    On a REAL continuum of Clinton’s policies, Bush would have continued with containment and non-military support of ousting Saddam while allowing the UN to finish their job which – lo and behold! – would have shown that he didn’t have a pot to piss in when it came to WMD.

  112. 112.

    Steve S

    November 16, 2005 at 5:01 pm

    It’s still interesting that the immediate Republican response to any problem is to try to find an excuse.

  113. 113.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 5:26 pm

    It’s still interesting that the immediate Republican response to any problem is to try to find an excuse.

    I think when they bragged about restoring “personal responsibility” to Washington, they meant that they’d find some person and make him responsible for everything that went wrong.

    Once again, Mission Accomplished.

  114. 114.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 5:29 pm

    It’s still interesting that the immediate Republican response to any problem is to try to find an excuse.

    The New GOP: “The Busk’s not even in our zip code.”

  115. 115.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 5:31 pm

    Busk=Buck.

  116. 116.

    GTinMN

    November 16, 2005 at 5:45 pm

    It’s still interesting that the immediate Republican response to any problem is to try to find an excuse.

    There are a number of other typical responses, but they NEVER include taking responsibility for ANYTHING. That’s just how fuckups are. Admitting they’re fuckups is the last thing in the world they’d ever do. We’ve got thje biggest fuckup in the history of this country as POTUS right now, and AFAIKS he has yet to admit to even one of his many failings.

  117. 117.

    The Disenfranchised Voter

    November 16, 2005 at 8:08 pm

    Speaking of interesting Strategery…

    How about Darth Vader coming out and attacking the war critics?

    Talk about an “interesting” strategy.

    Like anyone who isn’t a rabid partisan Republican is gonna take his word for it. Cheney is a joke.

  118. 118.

    Sojourner

    November 16, 2005 at 8:31 pm

    Why don’t they say that Clinton lied to them from 1997-2000?

    Did Clinton intentionally ignore contradictory evidence? Did Clinton’s staff out a CIA agent in order to undermine someone who publicly contradicted him? Did Clinton go to the same lengths the Bush administration did to mislead people through use of terms like “mushroom cloud”?

    Funny, I don’t remember that. So Clinton may or may not have been correct but there’s no evidence to indicate he intentionally tried to deceive the public. Obviously, the same cannot be same of the Bushies.

  119. 119.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 9:02 pm

    Next straw-grasper up!

    Did Clinton intentionally ignore contradictory evidence?

    Of course he did. If you think anything is unanimous in field intelligence, you don’t know how it works.

    Did Clinton’s staff out a CIA agent in order to undermine someone who publicly contradicted him?

    Irrelevant to the question of lying on intel… but has there been an outing indictment?

    Did Clinton go to the same lengths the Bush administration did to mislead people through use of terms like “mushroom cloud”?

    Ummmmm, yeah. Many times. Here’s one now:

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”
    Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

    Could proving the hypocrisy of the Bush-haters be any easier?

  120. 120.

    Mac Buckets

    November 16, 2005 at 9:13 pm

    So, Step Two is inconsequential if Bush had no intention of respecting it as part of the process.

    He did respect it as part of the process. He went twice to get an additional Resolution. He didn’t have to, but he did so because that was the next reasonable step. When he found out that the UN wouldn’t budge because Saddam was essentially paying them off, the next step was taken.

    The goal of removing Saddam didn’t change since 1998. As each small step failed, the next step was an escalation. When the UN step failed, the next step was building our own coalition.

    On a REAL continuum of Clinton’s policies, Bush would have continued with containment and non-military support of ousting Saddam while allowing the UN to finish their job

    The problem there is the false assumption that Clinton still thought “containment” and inspections were working. He did not — that’s why they changed official US policy to regime change in 1998. You don’t need regime change if inspections solve the problem. Granted, Clinton gave mixed signals about inspections, sometimes saying they were effective (I suspect mostly they were politically effective for him, because they kicked the real problem further down the road), but never saying they were the solution, because he was privy to the obfuscation and gamesmanship that Saddam was playing with the inspectors, and he was certain that Saddam had not disarmed as required.

  121. 121.

    Steve S

    November 16, 2005 at 9:29 pm

    I still think it’s funny you guys are trying to blame Bush’s failures on Clinton.

    When are you going to let go of the Clenis? Get over it already.

  122. 122.

    Mike S

    November 16, 2005 at 9:54 pm

    He did not—that’s why they changed official US policy to regime change in 1998.

    And what was that method of “Regime Change” again?

  123. 123.

    John S.

    November 16, 2005 at 10:06 pm

    And what was that method of “Regime Change” again?

    And around and around Mac’s circular logic will go…

  124. 124.

    Sojourner

    November 16, 2005 at 10:08 pm

    Of course he did. If you think anything is unanimous in field intelligence, you don’t know how it works.

    For pete’s sake. Coming to a conclusion on the basis of contradictory data is not the same thing as intentionally hiding data that is inconvenient to one’s desire to start a war. Duh.

    Irrelevant to the question of lying on intel… but has there been an outing indictment?

    Not yet. Fitz has to first get your guys to tell the truth. They’ve been lying for so long they’ve forgotten how to tell the truth.

    “Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

    Funny, I don’t see anything in here about a near-term threat that would require a war.

    Sorry, you flunk. Insert a quarter and try again.

  125. 125.

    Otto Man

    November 16, 2005 at 10:22 pm

    I still think it’s funny you guys are trying to blame Bush’s failures on Clinton.

    They’ll keep doing this until there’s another Democrat in office. And then they’ll parcel up Bush’s mistakes like Solomon — Clinton gets the first term whoppers and the next Dem gets the second term. It’s the fair thing to do.

  126. 126.

    Sojourner

    November 16, 2005 at 10:24 pm

    They’ll keep doing this until there’s another Democrat in office. And then they’ll parcel up Bush’s mistakes like Solomon—Clinton gets the first term whoppers and the next Dem gets the second term. It’s the fair thing to do.

    Sounds fair to me. I mean you really can’t expect a Repub like Bush to actually be effective. So it’s totally unfair to blame him when he’s not.

Comments are closed.

Primary Sidebar

Fundraising 2023-24

Wis*Dems Supreme Court + SD-8

Recent Comments

  • Hangö Kex on War for Ukraine Day 397: A New Week Begins (Mar 28, 2023 @ 3:57am)
  • Steve in the ATL on Late Night Open Thread: Taxing Prep (Mar 28, 2023 @ 3:41am)
  • Major Major Major Major on Late Night Open Thread: Taxing Prep (Mar 28, 2023 @ 3:38am)
  • Splitting Image on Late Night Open Thread: Taxing Prep (Mar 28, 2023 @ 3:18am)
  • Chris T. on Late Night Open Thread: Taxing Prep (Mar 28, 2023 @ 2:55am)

🎈Keep Balloon Juice Ad Free

Become a Balloon Juice Patreon
Donate with Venmo, Zelle or PayPal

Balloon Juice Posts

View by Topic
View by Author
View by Month & Year
View by Past Author

Featuring

Medium Cool
Artists in Our Midst
Authors in Our Midst
We All Need A Little Kindness
Classified Documents: A Primer
State & Local Elections Discussion

Calling All Jackals

Site Feedback
Nominate a Rotating Tag
Submit Photos to On the Road
Balloon Juice Mailing List Signup
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Links)
Balloon Juice Anniversary (All Posts)

Twitter / Spoutible

Balloon Juice (Spoutible)
WaterGirl (Spoutible)
TaMara (Spoutible)
John Cole
DougJ (aka NYT Pitchbot)
Betty Cracker
Tom Levenson
TaMara
David Anderson
Major Major Major Major
ActualCitizensUnited

Join the Fight!

Join the Fight Signup Form
All Join the Fight Posts

Balloon Juice Events

5/14  The Apocalypse
5/20  Home Away from Home
5/29  We’re Back, Baby
7/21  Merging!

Balloon Juice for Ukraine

Donate

Site Footer

Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

  • Facebook
  • RSS
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Comment Policy
  • Our Authors
  • Blogroll
  • Our Artists
  • Privacy Policy

Copyright © 2023 Dev Balloon Juice · All Rights Reserved · Powered by BizBudding Inc

Share this ArticleLike this article? Email it to a friend!

Email sent!