I guess the “Bush lied” or “I was fooled” line is not working, so the Democrats are trotting out a new meme:
Tom Daschle, the former Democratic senator from South Dakota, remembers the exchange vividly.
The time was September 2002. The place was the White House, at a meeting in which President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney pressed congressional leaders for a quick vote on a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq.
But Daschle, who as Senate majority leader controlled the chamber’s schedule, recalled recently that he asked Bush to delay the vote until after the impending midterm election.
“I asked directly if we could delay this so we could depoliticize it. I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush? Why do we have to do this now?’ He looked at Cheney and he looked at me, and there was a half-smile on his face. And he said: ‘We just have to do this now.’ ”
Daschle’s account, which White House officials said they could not confirm or deny, highlights a crucial factor that has drawn little attention amid rising controversy over the congressional vote that authorized the war in Iraq. The recent partisan dispute has focused almost entirely on the intelligence information legislators had as they cast their votes. But the debate may have been shaped as much by when Congress voted as by what it knew.
Bush’s father, President George H.W. Bush, did not call for a vote authorizing the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm election. But the vote paving the way for the second war with Iraq came in mid-October of 2002 — at the height of an election campaign in which Republicans were systematically portraying Democrats as weak on national security.
I guess the new line is “I only voted for the war for political considerations!”
That ought to go over well, and really rally the anti-war base.
*** Update ***
Regarding Bush 41’s decision to ‘delay’ the vote to ‘depoliticize’ it, John Henke notes:
On August 6, 1990, President Bush deployed “U.S. armed forces to defend Saudi Arabia in an operation named Operation Desert Shield.”
President George HW Bush didn’t “put off the debate”. He’d already decided: “in October 1990 [Bush] settled on military action if Iraq’s troops had not left Kuwait by the 15 January 1991 deadline.”
Read the whole thing.
I am still not sure how the Democrats think “We only voted for the war because we thought we wouldn’t get re-elected otherwise” is somehow the sort of campaign slogan that inspires confidence. “Vote Daschle! I’m too gutless to vote my conscience!”
That seems like a real winner, guys.
ppGaz
The majority of Americans have come to the conclusion that Bush misled the country into war. Around 52-57 percent depending on the poll.
How do you turn that into “not working?” Working in what sense?
What message does the “gotta have an October vote” history on this thing send to Americans, John? That the lying cocksucker potatoheads were trying really hard not to politicize the war? Why did we have an October vote?
Tractarian
Nice job of framing, John. But Daschle is not trying to make an “excuse” for his vote. And a quote from a disgraced former leader does not a party policy make.
Mike S
It’s been talked about since it first came about. I guess you don’t have a problem with calling war a “new product.”
John Cole
Yeah, tractarian. No excuse whatsoever. Just note that Kos and Think Progress have already picked up on it.
Really though- they aren;t trotting out a new meme.
You guys might disagree with me, but at least have the decency to recognize I am not stupid. I know what these guys are up to when they do stuff like this.
Jon H
” I know what these guys are up to when they do stuff like this.”
Yet remarkably obtuse when it’s your own side.
Blue Neponset
Have you seen Bush’s poll numbers lately? I think those meme’s are working fairly well. His agenda is all but stalled.
I don’t think the Repubs understand or won’t admit why the public is so unhappy with Bush; we are fighting a war that we didn’t have to fight and Bush won’t take any responsibility for his part in this HUGE mistake.
Regarding, the Daschle thing, I don’t think it helps the President’s cause. It is further evidence that Bush and the Repubs were politicizing this war from day one. Holding a vote right before the election on a divisive issue like gay marriage or the pledge of allegience is something the Repubs have done for the last few election cycles. Daschle’s claim is an indication that the Repubs were doing the same thing with the War in Iraq.
Blue Neponset
You aren’t stupid John, but I don’t think you are right about the D’s changing meme’s because they haven’t worked. This is just the next chapter in the same meme.
ppGaz
Oh yeah, dey BAD! Trying to oppose a corrupt and incomeptant government that has us up to our necks in what appears to be a failed war.
Good work, John. Keep your eye on them.
foolishmortal
Whatever the political applications of this “new line” are, it is also quite likely the truth. Not one that flatters Democrats perhaps, but the truth nonetheless.
ape
EH?
It’s now the Democrats who have to justify the war?
I thought AWOL was in charge.
2 cheers for the noise machine on this one, though. The issue is actually being debated. (Not, as Sully asks today, ‘does the president think waterboarding is torture?’ etc.. I heard Colonel Tim Collins on the TV saying that numerous captured Jihadis report that they watch Abu Ghraib videos before they go on missions. What has happened to the US and UK reputation? Obviously more important to find out why any Democrats trusted this president & his palpably venal administration; why didn’t they comb the smallprint when the president called in a time of national crisis when a further one was alleged.)
The reason, ppGaz, that most people think Bush is dishonest is surely that the MSM tells them so.
It’s like wading through a marsh and no, there is no way out.
Otto Man
What’s the big deal? Daschle made the comment, Think Progress reported it, and Kos linked to Think Progress. One more step and you can get to Kevin Bacon. Congrats.
If that chain of events seems like meme-spreading to you, John, then why not take a step back and ask why Democrats are suddenly discussing the political motivations of the administration’s push for the war resolution? Maybe it’s because Cheney has just started claiming that Democrats had all the evidence the White House had and were able to give it a full, fair and measured consideration before having to vote. Cheney’s the one who led us back to the October 2002 vote, using his rather creative memories of that time to accuse the Democrats of playing politics on Iraq.
I’m sorry that the Democrats once again are trying to point out that Cheney lives in a realm of fantasy and fiction, but it’s sort of become our habit these past few years.
neil
I’ll take the party that voted for war for political considerations over the party that started a war for political considerations any day.
Steve
Yes, clearly the Democrats are in full retreat from the “Bush lied” claim. You just go on thinking that.
ppGaz
There, a little something to cheer you up for the holidays.
From MSNBC’s blogs.
Rejoice … the church advances.
Nikki
Am I mistaken or did I see a Foxnews poll that has Bush at 28%?
The Disenfranchised Voter
Hmm, that’s funny…apparently around 57% of America disagrees with you.
As I said before, that number will only continue to grow as time goes on. Just this past week we had the news that the entire Bush Administration was told there was no evidence of an Iraq/Al Qaeda connection and that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 10 days after 9/11 took place.
I guess the Administration just conviently “forgot” about that key piece of info though, right John?
tomaig
So what justification would there be for DELAYING this vote until after the elections?
Wouldn’t that have been just as “political” as what the Dems are now trotting out as version…what? 8? 8.5? of
MyVotingExcuse?
p.lukasiak
I guess John doesn’t get what the Democrats are really saying…..
the Democrats wanted to wait, and have time to fully examine the issues. Bush insisted that he needed a vote in October, and the Democrats placed their trust in Bush and voted for the resolution.
This is exactly how the majority of Americans see what happened in the run-up to the war — they trusted that Bush was telling them the truth, and that trust was betrayed. Voters aren’t going to blame Democratic politicians for making the same mistake the voters themselves made — instead they will identify with the Democratic pols.
Mike S
Gee, I don’t know. Maybe it would be that they could have had an actual honest debate about doing something so grave as sending troops to war.
Otto Man
The same one that George H. W. Bush used in 1990 — a realization that politics needed to be kept out of a crucial matter like voting to go to war. And that decision came after Saddam invaded Kuwait in August. Bush 41 still put it off several months.
Bush 43 had no reason to rush to war — because, as all the conservatives keep insisting, he never said Saddam was an “imminent” threat, right? — and yet did so anyway.
The Dems are just trying to keep pace with the Republicans’ ever-changing list of excuses for going to war in the first place. It’s like they have an Excuse-a-Day desk calendar.
neil
Tomaig: The justification is that the vote was not urgent (Iraq was not an imminent threat) and the debate and vote would be tainted by the election which was monopolizing the attention of a third of the Senators and all the Representatives.
Tim F.
OMG, news aggregators picked up on something newsworthy.
If people have been saying this since before the 2002 midterms, it seems awfully hairy to qualify as a ‘new’ meme. Most of us recognized at the time that the administration demagogued terrorism fears into a war debate specifically tailored to bias the 2002 elections. It would qualify as ‘rewriting history’ if any of them denied it.
KC
What I think is funny is that for all the opportunism in the Dem clan right now, it’s pretty obvious that Bush and the adminisration were not honest before the war. If Dems were sapped and suckered by the administration, so what? It doesn’t mean that the administration didn’t want to 1) have a war, 2) like all other administrations that want war, put on a big PR effort to make sure it went off, and 3)get all the electoral advantage they could draw from it. I don’t see why this is so controversial or difficult to admit. It has been done before and will probably be done to some extent or another in the future. That the PR wasn’t completely straight forward to me is now a given. From Slate today:
Here’s a quick example of what the administration was doing in the push for war:
They were pushing a line plain and simple.
Mike S
There was a pretty good piece by Martin Frost on the FOX website about something along these lines.
ppGaz
That was then, this is now. The Spuds have perfected the art of politicizing foreign policy and national defense.
Let them therefore burn in the eternal fires of hell for it.
BIRDZILLA
Tom dascele was voted out by the citizens of South Dakoda becuase he was a real jackass
Charlie (Colorado)
I said: ‘Mr. President, I know this is urgent, but why the rush?
“I know it’s urgent, but why the rush?”
Doesn’t anyone find that a little disingenuous?
OCSteve
I don’t think the old memes did not work. I agree that the poll numbers reflect that they had an impact (and I’ll even skip the whole big lie repeated often enough thing).
But I think that with the pushback that began a couple weeks ago and the new WaPo poll showing even the Dems think it is bad for troop moral – well, they got about as much traction out of it as they could. Time for something new.
The best part of the “Bush lied” or “I was fooled” meme is that it looks more and more like they simply did not do their homework:
http://news.bostonherald.com/opinion/view.bg?articleid=114273
Now I wonder why Hillary declined to say? Sitting on that fencepost has got to hurt after a while.
neil
By the way, John, what the hell is so wrong with that line, anyway? They voted based on politics? I don’t think the American swing voter is so naive as to believe that politicians never cast their votes based on political considerations. Some may even be clever enough to realize that it takes two (or more) to politick – that the Democrats didn’t get together and decide to vote politically in order to screw up the Republican’s pure, non-politically-tainted war campaign.
Some, who are not in a state of Noonan-esque thrall at the masculine leadership of the Republican party, may apply the principle of cui bono, and determine that if the Democrats were playing politics with the war resolution, they were clearly out-played by the Republicans.
Mike S
Maybe you should read the piece I linked above. I think the very least that should be expected when debating a war is honesty from the people briefing you.
I’m having a hard time figuring out why the new GOP thinks blaming the Democrats for believing the adminstration’s misleading information is a good tactic at this point. A majority of the country believes that the admin misled them into supporting the war. Now the administration and their appoligists are basically admitting it.
ppGaz
Watching “24” reruns today on A&E. Interesting.
How many times can Jack Bauer save the world before a Republican in Washington, DC actually takes responsbility for something?
Let’s start a pool.
Blue Neponset
I hope the WH and its supporters keep trying to make the argument that the Dems are to blame for trusting Bush in the first place.
John S.
THIS is more of the same kind of nonsense from the Democrats that prevents John from voting for them.
If only they could come up with a more unified and consistent
liemessage (like the Republicans are so good at doing) to explain their complicitness in allowing a Republican dominated government do what they were going to do anyway based on hand-picked information the White House spoon fed them.Mac Buckets
Yeah, the Democrats had only been saying that Saddam had WMD for SIX YEARS at that point, and that he should be ousted and replaced with a democracy because of his WMDs for FOUR YEARS.
But the Democrats needed just another month, ever-so-conveniently just until after the midterm elections, to figure out if they wanted to authorize the President to go to war. You know, to have time “to fully examine the issue.”
That may be the most naive and desperately surreal bit of spin I’ve ever heard. Seriously, how dumb do you guys think the American people are?
The President made the Democrats vote their six-years-held convictions (while making them accountable to The People who they allegedly represent) vs. voting a partisan anti-Bush line (with which The People who they allegedly represent would’ve disagreed). If making a Congressman vote their convictions is a horrible political trick, then those Democrats should resign tomorrow. They obviously aren’t up to the job.
Mac Buckets
Why would the WH have to make that argument when good Democrats like Richard Gephardt can do it for them?
Mike S
Did those “convictions” include invading Iraq? Only in the eyes of congenital liars like Maximus. No wonder the jackass is a Republican. Dishonesty is their stock and trade these days.
Blue Neponset
So which is it? Did the Democrats do their homework or not?
OCSteve seems to think they didn’t do their homework and you seem to think they did.
Jon H
OCSteve writes: “The best part of the “Bush lied” or “I was fooled” meme is that it looks more and more like they simply did not do their homework:”
Largely because the administration gave them practically no time to wade through the document before the vote.
And note, that’s a document which the administration wasn’t going to provide at all until pushed by the Dems.
Otto Man
Mac Buckets is a lot like President Bush. He thinks if he repeats something stupid often enough, people will accept it.
There’s a big difference between thinking Saddam had WMDs and thinking those WMDs posed a serious enough threat to launch a major war over. I’m sorry if you’re too stupid to understand the difference, too partisan to admit the difference, or both.
Otto Man
Could the site administrators save this quote as a rebuttal to the next “Demmycrats is stupid!” troll?
Thanks in advance.
Rob
Yikes; this has to start being discouring for John. Every post he makes defending Bush is refuted (Well I might add) by the ratio of about 20 to 1.
Steve S
That’s not new.
We all knew the Iraq war was politically motivated back in the Fall of 2002. If Daschle had had any balls, he would have said so at the time.
I was watching the British elections with interest earlier this year, and Tony Blair tried a similar stunt with an anti-terrorism bill. It was refreshing to hear Michael Howard call him out on it, saying something like “Blair has given us a bill which has many problems, quite knowingly. He wants us to vote against it, so that he can then campaign and call us soft on terrorism.”
That’s what the 2002 authorization bill was about. CAmpaign tactics.
Jay
This new meme was started by EJ Dionne at the Washington Post. Problem is, it’s bogus. That the Democrats wanted to “depoliticize” the vote is bogus and that the ‘debate’ over the first Gulf War was put off until after the 1990 midterms is also bogus.
Jon Henke has all the details.
Steve S
BTW. Just so you understand. There is no anti-war base.
There’s a “Iraq was a major clusterfuck” base, but that’s considerably different.
John S.
I don’t know Mac, but judging from posts by you, Darrell, TallDave and others, my view of the intelligence of the American people has been shaken slightly.
Jon H
“Vote GOP! We’ll lie in your face and send you to die for a fantasy!”
Blue Neponset
Jay,
The two bills noted by Henke don’t say anything about using force to remove Iraqi troops from Kuwait. In fact, Congress didn’t authorize the use of force in Iraq until January 21, 1991.
How can you reconcile this with your claim that Dionne is wrong that:
Lines
And it appears poor little Jon Henke was shot down in his own forums.
Good try Caruso, but you ignore the facts, once again, and search only for echos of your lost conscious.
Otto Man
That Henke thing is pathetic. Rushing troops to one allied country (Saudi Arabia in Op Desert Shield) is not the same thing as going to war against Iraq across the border inside Kuwait (Op Desert Storm).
For people who claim to be against moral relativism, the conservatives sure are good at splitting semantic hairs when it suits their cause. Desert Shield and Desert Storm were the same thing. The fighting in Iraq now isn’t part of “the actual war,” and therefore prewar predictions about “the actual war” are true. Scooter Libby didn’t technically break the law.
You guys make Clinton sound like a straight shooter.
Lines
At least the Democrats still have a little bit of a conscience and recognize when they were wrong, admit to it, and attempt to sit down and find workable solutions rather than “more of the same”.
And how do you know Republican’s all voted their conscious? I would say they didn’t give a flying fuck what the truth was at the time and voted for party over country. Is that better?
neil
Sorry to rain on your parade, John, but nothing can change the fundamental reality that the Republicans led on Iraq and the Democrats followed. After two bruising campaigns telling the story that the Republicans led on Iraq and the Democrats were indecisive if not against the war, there’s simply no way to reverse course and blame the whole thing on them. Nobody who’s not a professional kool-aid drinker has a worldview where this war was a bipartisan failure.
Another Jeff
I know this is the blogosphere where everyone is right 100% of the time, but why does this have to be an either/or thing.
It IS actually possible to believe that Bush politicized this AND at the same time believe that Daschle, and anyone else on his side who tries the same argument, is gonna look like a spineless dope.
This is why, out in the real world where people don’t know or give a flying fuck who Atrios or Glenn Reynolds are, that people are losing faith in this administration and Republicans in general, yet not flocking over to the Democrats.
Blue Neponset
John,
That Henke post is weak to say the least. I have read the whole post a number of times and I have read Henke’s links and I can’t understand why you think anything Henke says rebukes EJ Dionne’s conclusion that Bush 41, “put off the debate over the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm elections”.
Could you elaborate a bit?
Otto Man
To be fair, it was Jay that trotted out that weak post, not John.
Lines
Another Jeff:
Ok, so what are they going to do? Stay home and not vote? Lets see, in a single digit victory, if Republicans and conservative/moderate fence sitters stay home, who will win in overwhelming victories.
Its been a Republican strategy, make people not care and stay home and Conservatives will usually win. What happens now that conservatives stay home?
Oh, scare the people some more. Remember that Terror Alert system? Prepare for Terror Alert System 3000! With all new colors, like AWOL Argyle, Coke-Sniffing Chartreuse and Bring It On Blue!
Blue Neponset
Look at the story again. John updated it to include a link to the Henke story.
Otto Man
Whoops, my mistake.
Or John’s, I suppose.
Armando
John:
Not your best, even from your partisan perspective.
But the number of Dems who wil come to your site to correct you is a credit to you. They think it merits doing so.
Kudos.
OCSteve
The October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate was prepared by the CIA and they stand by it. Dems holler now they didn’t have all the details – well the details are in there.
http://www.cia.gov/cia/public_affairs/press_release/2003/pr08112003.htm
I thought the CIA could do no wrong after PlameGate?
It was a 90 page document. How long does it take a relatively intelligent person (can’t believe I just wrote that in reference to politicians) to read and digest 90 pages? At the least they could come up with parts they didn’t understand or want more info on. Most though did not read beyond the 5 page executive summary.
Of course the timing of the vote was political – to get the Dems on record prior to the mid-terms. But Daschle was the Senate majority leader controlled the chamber’s schedule. Did cowboy Bush put him into a headlock until he scheduled the vote? How about the Dems were eager to get on record for the resolution to look strong on defense going into the mid-terms?
John S.
Look up the term redaction. You may want to familiarize with it before stating such nonsense.
KC
I think that the administration was dishonest about some stuff–they clearly wanted war and were willing to say things to get it. Some of those things obviously were overboard, I linked to a story above that covers a bunch of them. Why can’t people just admit, there was a PR game to get us into war? It doesn’t necessarily mean the war was wrong or that it isn’t a good idea now, it just means that there was an effort to get us into war.
On the other hand, that many Democrats were cowards in the face of the post-911 Bush political machine is also true. Some really did feel we needed to go to war though. None of this negates the fact that the administration said some stuff that was inaccurate or misleading.
Mac Buckets
If Bush 41 thought that way, he was just plain old wrong (and as an ex-Congressman, he might’ve felt their political pain, a bit too much). Why shouldn’t The People have a chance to make their elected representatives accountable for their votes? Why give the politicians cover to get them re-elected — isn’t this a representative republic?
War with Saddam wasn’t a new issue by any stretch of the imagination. We’d already passed the Iraq Liberation Act in 1998, we’d bombed in 1998-1999, we’d funded rebels in Iraq in 1999-2001, we’d gone to the UN asking for an enforcement Resolution, we’d made the case for war to the UNSC, Bush had given speeches on pre-emption in Iraq…all before this vote was scheduled. Dozens of these Democrats were on record time and time again saying that Saddam was a threat and he needed to be overthrown.
But the Dems needed just another month to figure out what was going on in Iraq? No, what some (not all) Democrats needed was a chance to talk tough in front of their war-supporting constituents and to talk dove in front of their MoveOns to persuade a majority of them to vote Donkey.
Does anyone really doubt that a Congressman who wants to delay a major vote until they get re-elected is far more concerned about their re-election than about that vote?
Mike S
Only dipshits see the world in black and white. That goes a long way in explaining many of the Bush appoligists.
Lines
I loves me some CIA because they got something right, once!
And now I have to go on forever luving the CIA cuz they gots game on Plame!
Jesus Steve, are you really such a simpleton in real life or do you just play one on the internets?
Mike S
There is no bigger liar on these boards than Maximum Buckets of shit.
smijer
We’ve been calling Daschle the gutless wonder for some time. I’m glad y’all are catching on… Maybe ND Democrats caught just a tad before the purple state GOP; who knows?
Anyway, I, for one, am glad to see Harry Reid running our side of the senate now… whatever else he is, he’s got balls. He’s part of the reason that it is now politically unpopular to be an Iraq war fanatic.
Lines
So you believe a totally honest and straightforward debate about the invasion would have taken place knowing that a vast majority of America wanted revenge on some brown-skinned tuhrists? How about now that the American blood has cooled and blindly striking out at Middle East targets is no longer seen as a good thing? Yes, another month would have most likely generated a more honest debate.
Mac, you’re almost more of a simpleton than OCStevie.
Mac Buckets
Yes, obviously, they did, and we know that from the vote, don’t we? Another month, after six years of dealing with the Saddam problem, wouldn’t have made a whit of difference… except it would’ve given political cover to partisan cowards, which I guess is all a lot of you guys want, anyway.
Jason
“Only dipshits see the world in black and white. That goes a long way in explaining many of the Bush appoligists.”
So true Mike!
Why just the other day I had a “discussion” with a group of anti-war students here on campus in which I tried to explain my support for the war to them. After about three minutes, one of them, perhaps noting the size of my nose, interrupted the discussion and asked me if I was a Jew.
Oh the sweet nuanced worldview of the Left puts me to shame every time!
Seriously John, where do you get these commentors? I haven’t seen this much self-aggrandizing snark since I was in 8th grade and we had a substitute teacher.
Mike S
There must be a liars annonomous in your area. You should probably attend since you are very lame at it.
Mike S
I’m guessing that was last year.
Mac Buckets
Obviously, some did, and some did not. The point is, they were not misled or lied to by Bush, as Gephardt notes. The ones that did their homework like Gephardt, going to multiple sources in CIA and the Clinton Administration, were convinced of Saddam’s WMDs, and like him, they likely voted “yes.”
(Because, as the Democrat noted, 9/11 changed everything!)
Jason
“How about now that the American blood has cooled and blindly striking out at Middle East targets is no longer seen as a good thing?”
Yeah cause toppling one of the worst dictators of the late twentieth century and promoting a pluralist democracy in his stead is totally the same “blindly striking out” at “some brown-skinned tuhrists”…whatever the hell those are.
Internationalism really is dead on the Left. Of course when I told idiot blogger Josh Narins that, he responded: “nu-uh, only the Left cares about international opinion and the UN”!
I’d never felt so validated in my life.
Lines
Did you want to take part in the discussion, Jason, or are you just trolling? Maybe you should attend a site where they continually refer to the Jewish as Joooooos!
The anti-war isn’t all “Democrats” and nor should it be. The Democrats have a lot to answer for, their vote and complacency in this idiotic invasion one of the primary.
I take it that in your world, its better for a prominent party guy to call for the assassination of a foreign government official than for some random hippy to point at someone’s nose and question their ethnicity becaus they lack debating skills. Fair comparison, for sure.
TallDave
Well, when 70% of Americans think you’re saying Bush lied for partisan reasons (which is higher than the number who think Bush lied), I guess you have to try SOMETHING new that hopefully won’t blow up in your face quite so much.
I love the nuance: “I was against the war when I voted for the war, but I voted for it because I didn’t want to appear weak on national security before the elections — even though, secretly, I really was weak on national security!” It’s so ineffable, it almost has a Zen quality to it. What is the sound of a Democrat voting his conscience? If Chuck Schumer isn’t in front of a TV camera, does he make a sound?
Jason
“I’m guessing that was last year.”
Case in point.
Lines
Jason:
to continually flaunt your debating skills while displaying none of them is really a poor entertainment. Why don’t you put some of those abilities to use here? Attack some of the arguments with something more than “Saddam was a bad guy” kind of bullshit strawmen and come up with a reason you needed to wipe your ass with the Constitution to get an invasion of Iraq?
You know, national interest and all that. Saddam being a bad guy really didn’t interfere with our national interest or safety, so why don’t you try a new argument and we can laugh at that one, too?
John S.
Funny, I’m not sure how someone who is ‘anti-war’ and tries to change the subject on the basis of a racist assumption represents the worldview of the ‘Left’.
If anything puts you to shame, it is your own bullshit comments like these.
Jason
“Did you want to take part in the discussion, Jason, or are you just trolling?”\
What discussion? All you guys seem to be doing is trading insults and talking points and then fellating each other over the sweet nuance of it all.
“You know, national interest and all that. Saddam being a bad guy really didn’t interfere with our national interest or safety, so why don’t you try a new argument and we can laugh at that one, too?”
Thank you for again utterly confirming my point that internationalism is dead on the left. You’re right of course. Saddam may have massacred a half million Iraqis…but him “being a bad guy really didn’t interfere with our national interest or safety”…other than the no-fly zones we had to enfore for over a decade to prevent him from making in an even million.
Jason
“Funny, I’m not sure how someone who is ‘anti-war’ and tries to change the subject on the basis of a racist assumption represents the worldview of the ‘Left’.”
Four years ago I wouln’t have thought so either! How times change eh?
Otto Man
If you and the racist strawmen of your imagination would like to be alone, we’ll all understand.
Wow, that’s pathetic. If that’s the greatest validation of your life, you might want to consider a new career or perhaps even dating.
And as others have said, as much as we all love hearing about how smart you are and what a brilliant debater you are, we’ve never actually seen proof of either. Feel free to try.
Mac Buckets
I’d take your insults a little more seriously if you got your history right, or if you addressed the issue at hand.
First, there is not such a big difference between voting and saying publicly that Saddam should be overthrown because of his WMD (and bombing and funding rebels to that effect), and taking the necessary steps to achieve that goal. In fact, a sane person would argue that the two go hand-in-glove. You must stop pretending that all the Democrats did was “think” that Saddam had WMD — it’s a bit dishonest.
Second, they had months, if not years, to ponder whether sending troops to Iraq would achieve their goals. You still haven’t shown me anything to suggest that one more month would’ve made any difference, except it would’ve hid Congress’s votes from their constituents, which is the issue at hand.
Otto Man
Project much? “An’ then I told that stupid lefty blogger where he could stick it. Hoo-boy! I am so smart! S-M-R-T!”
Jason
Otto did you not just say: “Wow, that’s pathetic. If that’s the greatest validation of your life, you might want to consider a new career or perhaps even dating.”
Booyeah! I guess I am just projecting.
Mike S
I’m waiting for any poll that backs that one up. Maybe one that doesn’t specify “Demecrats” in the question since there are alos Republicans that have done so as well.
Either way it is a moot point. The country believes they were misled not because of what dems are saying but because every week there is more evidence that they did. And the fact that your party has been negligent in investigating it doesn’t do much for your party.
It may have been about a year too late but the Ameican public is catching on to the fact that the New GOP has serious problems with the truth. Yet they keep misleading the public no matter how many times they get caught. I for one am very happy to see that.
John S.
What I love even more are these bullshit insinuations that EVERY DEMOCRAT VOTED FOR THIS WAR.
The Senate vote had 29 voting for the measure and 21 against, while in the House 126 Democrats voted against the resolution. And yet somehow, all these right-wingers would have you believe that EVERY elected Democrat has to backpeddle to cover up their vote. This is pure and total bullshit. I leave you with John’s favorite Senator:
Source
Gratefulcub
Wow, almost 50 posts until it turned into name calling. Nice.
Jason,
Not wanting to invade and occupy countries to liberate their people does not mean internationalism is dead on the left. There are other forms of internationalism. Someone on the left can actually support proactive international involvement, without supporting the invasion of Iraq. And, no one but Wolfowitz wanted to invade Iraq due to SH being a bad guy. The liberation was just the only excuse left.
Otto Man
No, what’s dishonest is saying that because the Democrats thought he had WMDs they naturally were in favor of invading Iraq. If that were so, then why didn’t Bill Clinton invade in 1998?
Another month, or three, would’ve allowed for a more thorough vetting of the intelligence — the intelligence which everyone now agrees was flawed in one way or another. Since everyone agrees, from the president on down, that the assumptions about Saddam’s WMD capabilities were wrong, then why wouldn’t we have been better off spending more time vetting those arguments?
As far as “hiding” the vote to war, that’s nonsense. Bush rigged the schedule — for no good reason save politics — in order to turn the 2002 midterms into a referendum on who was tougher on terrorism. The effort to “roll out the product” in Andy Card’s telling metaphor was an effort to screw over the Dems. It went hand in hand with the ads depicting Max Cleland as an ally of Osama and Saddam.
John S.
Jason-
Way to not provide anything that even remotely constitutes a rationale for your shoddy little anecdote.
Not that I expected more from the likes of you.
Lines
Well, lets see, many doubted, including Bush Sr., that military force wouldn’t come at too high of a cost. Unfortunately, they wern’t allowed to speak their doubts while America was being threatened with Coke-Sniffing Chartreuse Terror Alerts and having Condi out claiming that the next sunrise would look more like a mushroom cloud, courtesy of Saddam. Allowing false accusations that one wasn’t interested in American security because one didn’t want to military invade a country and essentially shit on our own Constitution really doesn’t help someone get elected. Convincing America, at that time, that the invasion was both illegal and ill-planned was considered treasonous. Look at what happened to those that voted against the PATRIOT Act. Another month may have ended up allowing the CIA and DIA doubts to come up in American discourse, to allow a finer look at Chalabi and his “intelligence”. Another month would have allowed Hans Blix and his team to totally shoot everything to shreds.
The timing was perfect. Force the Democrats to go along with you for re-election purposes, short-sheet Hans Blix and hopefully be home for Christmas covered in rose petals and confetti.
Otto Man
Just responding to you on your level, Jason.
Still waiting for a reasoned effort at debate. Seems like you’re not capable of that.
Mike S
I find it interesting that none on the right have even the slightest problem with Andy Card’s comment on not introducing a new product n August. I guess equating the most important decision a President can make with Tickle Me Elmo isn’t a problem with the new GOP.
Mac Buckets
To someone with a near-sighted view of history, maybe. You might want to consult Clinton before subscribing to this theory.
The meme lives on. I’ve still yet to meet or read anyone on the Right who’s trying to “blame” Democrats for pushing us into war in Iraq. Please show me someone, even a rightie whackjob, who is whining — I’ll slap him myself.
Eliminate the word bipartisan, and it’s my thoughts exactly.
Gratefulcub
I love how we throw talking points back and forth about ‘Bush Lies’. The American people don’t really care if Bush SAID Iraq and OBL and 9/11 were all intertwined. They just remember that they believed they were all connected, that the president kept saying “Iraq is the central front in the war on terrorism.” Don’t parse that statement, just take it in as Americans that don’t really pay attention to foreign policy or politics except for a month every 4 years. The statement is simple: 9/11-terrorism-Iraq. Turns out that there was no real connection. The people feel mislead.
They aren’t turning on Bush because al-Libi gave coerced testimony and the administration used it even though they knew it was false. It isn’t about nuance, they just ‘feel in their gut’ that they were lied to. George should know better than anyone that what matters is what you ‘feel in your gut.’
Of course no one is flocking to the Dems. They were spineless back then. They can’t come out and aggressively push the admin because the harder they push, the more questions they have to answer about their own actions.
Where is the party that wants to hold all the responsible actors accountable? It has turned into a debate about who was worse, and the other is vindicated. Bullshit.
Otto Man
Mac Buckets last night at 12:54 am:
Mac Buckets today at 4:58pm:
So people who think the war is a failure are all professional kool-aid drinkers?
According to the most recent polls, roughly two-thirds of the American people think that we won’t be successful in creating a democracy, think that we should bring the troops home within the next year, and disapprove of Bush’s handling of the war.
Tell me again about your immense respect for the American people?
Al Maviva
Republicans only won because they slandered Daschle, a quadruple amputee who lost his arms and legs fighting in WW II, and who now gets around only by pushing a small rolling platform on which he lays, using an iron clamped in his teeth to do the pushing. He gets up the steps into the Capitol Building by rolling up. Or by letting Trent Lott drop kick him up the stairs, which Lott enjoys enormously. Sen. Daschle lived only to serve his country.
What? You never heard all this?
Well, it only goes to show the media’s right wing bias…
John S.
Republicans only won because they
slanderedcomparedDaschleCleland to Saddam and bin Laden, aquadrupletriple amputee who lost hisarmsarm and legs fighting inWW IIVietnam, and who now gets around only bypushing a small rolling platform on which he lays, using an iron clamped in his teeth to do the pushinga wheelchair.What? You have heard all this?
Well, it only goes to show the media’s
rightleft wing bias…Carry on, Al.
don surber
So Daschle admits he voted for a war just to win an election.
Further comment is unnecessary
John S.
This is seriously the funniest thing MacBuckets has ever said around here:
Because, you know, with having control over every branch of government, it has been REALLY difficult for Republicans to get their message out.
Lines
No, you intentionally took a lengthy description and tried to parse it down to a short blob that supports your position. He voted to give the President war powers so as to remain plausable for the future election. A future vote was promised by Bush (who broke that promise). If he was defeated, that future vote would have been for Bush. Thats one way to look at it.
I’m not defending Daschle, I’m just disgusted by your simple-minded manipulation of the situation. Daschle and the rest of the weak-knee Democrats can bite the collective Democratic ass. They will pay for their complicency.
So throw shit and run because your original summation was dishonest and useless?
Jason
“Just responding to you on your level, Jason.”
No you’re like a baby sniveling when his wet nurse clocks out. Then when someone chastises you, you deride them as infantile. It would be funny if it weren’t so stupid.
As for the contention that the liberation of Iraq on humanitarian grounds was some ad hoc justification after no WMD turned up…how bout you folks actually go read some of the speeches Bush and Blair were making in 2002 and early 2003 before parroting that bromide…m’kay?
Otto Man
How about Bush’s major speech in Cincinnati in October 2002? That was and is widely regarded as Bush’s full case for the war.
Read it. He spends 40 straight paragraphs insisting that Iraq represented a growing threat to the United States and world peace, that it had massive amounts of WMDs, that Saddam had a group of “nuclear holy warriors” working to develop nuclear capabilities, and that Saddam had strong sympathies for al Qaeda. Then at the end, in paragraphs 41-44, he finally gets around to the argument that Saddam is a tyrant. He then spends as much time going back to rehash his terrorism and WMD argument.
46 paragraphs on WMDs, terrorism, and the nuclear threat. 4 on the need to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam.
So, yes, there was lip service to the liberation claims from the start, but it was clearly tacked on to the main argument that Saddam would strike America with a “mushroom cloud” or his drones that could deploy WMDs over American cities.
To claim that this was all about liberation from the start is pathetic.
Mac Buckets
Yeah, only the New York Times and Washington Post and USA Today and Time magazine agree with me, that the President wasn’t getting his message out on intel until two weeks ago.
But your lightweight nonsequiters (do you have another trick?) really put me in my place!
Otto Man
So you’re not going to claim this was Daschle’s Gettysburg Address?
Jason
“To claim that this was all about liberation from the start is pathetic.”
Yes because that is EXACTLY what I said.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Look the main justification for the war was the immediate threat Saddam posed. They even had to throw in Al Qaeda connections and a nuclear program to make the case.
Without that grave threat, the war couldn’t have been sold to the American public regardless of the other little mentioned reasons (spreading freedom)
We now have plenty of evidence that indicates the Administration knew Saddam wasn’t as big as a threat as they led us to believe. Not to mention the outright lies about Saddam-9/11 and Saddam and Al Qaeda.
I think eventually even most Republicans will come to the realization that we were lied to. They will just justify the lie in the sense that going to Iraq was a noble cause–no matter how we got there.
Jay
I have read the whole post a number of times and I have read Henke’s links and I can’t understand why you think anything Henke says rebukes EJ Dionne’s conclusion that Bush 41, “put off the debate over the Persian Gulf War until after the 1990 midterm elections”.
The debate was well under way as is evidenced by the fact of the introduced legislation by Congress. In the links, it’s also clear that Bush had already decided he was going to take military action. The only thing left was a trigger, which was Saddam’s obligation under UNSC resolution 678 to withdraw his troops.
The notion that Bush 41 put everything off until after the elections and that Bush 43 pushed everything prior to the elections is bullshit.
There was debate on the Gulf War prior to the 1990 midterms and Democrats were calling for a debate and a vote prior to the 2002 elections.
Jay
Force the Democrats to go along with you for re-election purposes
Oh please. The same Democrats who were able to thwart appeals court nominees were suddenly cowering in fear at the President who ‘forced’ them to go along? What, did the President stick them with cattle prods or something?
Jon H
OCSteve writes; ” Most though did not read beyond the 5 page executive summary.”
Now, this is a valid complaint. I think what happened is this – Bush didn’t want to release an NIE at all. The Democrats managed to get one, and at that point they felt they’d ‘won’ and done their job and sat on their meagre laurels. From there, they assumed that the NIE would be compiled on the up-and-up, and voted as if Bush were playing it straight (and as if they were terrified of being pilloried by Fox News and the right-wing media)
Unfortunately, this NIE was a major rush job (compiled in a fraction of the usual time), sloppy, and left a lot of stuff out. For example, the Presidential Daily Briefings that Bush doesn’t want to release now. If Congress got the same intel as the President, then there’d be no reason to resist giving them up, would there?
You certainly have no disagreement from me – the Dems of 2002 were no profile in courage.
Otto Man
Gee, maybe those are political stances with different ramifications? Or do you really think the average voter would be just as incensed by a charge that Democrats didn’t give a nominee to the 3rd Circuit Court a fair hearing, as they would be that the Democrats are soft on terrorism?
Jay
Unfortunately, this NIE was a major rush job (compiled in a fraction of the usual time), sloppy, and left a lot of stuff out. For example, the Presidential Daily Briefings that Bush doesn’t want to release now. If Congress got the same intel as the President, then there’d be no reason to resist giving them up, would there?
How long are people going to keep trotting out this crap?
Otto Man
OK, then, this is what you said:
That implies that liberation of Iraq was, as the administration would like us to believe, at the forefront of its rationale for the war in Iraq. As Bush’s own words make clear, it wasn’t. It was about 8 percent of his entire Cincinnati speech, and tucked into the end. That sounds pretty low on the totem pole to me.
Otto Man
Great. Then it should be really easy for you to find that debate on the use of military force inside Kuwait and against Saddam and then provide us all a nice checkable citation here.
Don’t bother with the weak evidence that Henke trots out. His first piece of “proof” is a congressional note of support for putting troops on the ready in Saudi Arabia, and his second is, for some reason, a statement that resolving the invasion of Kuwait should not be tied to other Middle East concerns. (Right. Clearly Congress wanted to go to war.)
Anyway, you keep insisting there was a debate on the actual decision to go to war. Go find the proof.
Bruce Moomaw
I’ve always had every reason to believe that this is why a lot of Senate Democrats — and Republicans — DID vote for the war. After all, a grand total of only 6 Senators even bothered to read the (already-rigged-up) classified NIE.
But Daschle’s argument isn’t so much a denial of the “Bush rigged the intelligence” meme — which is going to be rather hard to disprove, since it’s true — as an addition to it: the White House not only rigged the evidence, but ALSO timed the vote to put electoral pressure (from the public, whom the White House was misleading even more thoroughly at the time) on skeptical Senators.
The Disenfranchised Voter
I’m starting to get the impression that not only were we mislead, but Bush was misled as well. My impression is that Cheney suckered Bush isnto this war on trumped up charges.
You know, if Bush were to fire Cheney for misleading him and us, my disapproval would immediately switch to approval.
ppGaz
If the Cole-Bushmonkeys get the Democrats to admit that the war is their fault … will they then admit that the thing is a collossal fuckup?
What exactly is the end game for this new strategy of blaming the Democrats for the war, John? Just curious.
John S.
The strategy is for Republicans to get the Democrats behind them so when they commit hari kari, they will both be killed.
Oops, I meant this hari kari.
John S.
Just a reminder for those losing track:
In the House
81 out of 207 (39%) Democrats voted for this war.
215 out of 221 (97%) Republicans voted for this war.
In the Senate
29 out of 50 (58%) Democrats voted for this war.
48 out of 49 (98%) Republicans voted for this war.
Now tell me again how ALL the Democrats were for this war to begin with.
Jay
Gee, maybe those are political stances with different ramifications? Or do you really think the average voter would be just as incensed by a charge that Democrats didn’t give a nominee to the 3rd Circuit Court a fair hearing, as they would be that the Democrats are soft on terrorism?
And there you have it.
Daschle and the boys wilted like flowers in a desert because their re-elections were apparently more important than doing what they thought was right.
These are people you want running the country?
Otto Man
Nope. I hated Daschle and Gephardt and was delighted to see them go. So thanks Republicans, for getting rid of the weak guys and letting us replace them with Dean, Reid and Pelosi.
The point of that comment was to suggest that your claim — that the Democrats had boldly blocked some inconsequential court nominees, so why wouldn’t they do the same to Bush’s war campaign — was ridiculous. And it still is.
Bruce Moomaw
Regarding the White House’s deliberate rigging of the intelligence, there’s a nice recent summary from Jacob Weisberg in “Slate”, and Kevin Drum has provided more detail in his own items. (Note that Weisberg agrees with “Disenfranchised Voter” that Bush may well just have been a fellow victim, simply because of his “self-delusion, disengagement, and sheer mush-headedness”. I suppose this means Bush could plead “not guilty by reason of inanity”.)
Mac Buckets
I’ve given the long answer many times, but the short, less-nuanced answer was summed up by Chris Hitchens: Clinton was a coward. I don’t go quite that far, but I’d note all the half-measures Clinton tried to oust Saddam, and all of them failed. What was left to do, if he wanted to achieve his goal?
This assertion is not supported by fact. The more homework Congress did, as Gephardt showed, the more they were convinced — by the CIA, the Clintonistas, everybody – that the war was justified by Saddam’s WMD threat.
That wasn’t ever Daschle’s argument, though, was it? His argument wasn’t about getting more info, because Congress knew that was silly — they’d been debating Iraq for six years with an eye toward going back to war with Iraq. Any Congressman who cared had seen the intel and talked to the people in charge.
Daschle was asking for the vote to be moved just on the other side of the election, expressly because of the election, with nary a mention of vetting anything.
The majority gets to make the schedule — them’s the rules. There’s no rigging necessary.
Of course, both sides were doing what was in their political interest — the GOP wanted the Dems on record for the election, and some Dems wanted to dodge being on the record for the election. In the end, the President and the voters won out. No one can say whether the schedule changed votes a bit, but at least the voters knew where their candidate stood, rather than allowing him or her to hide out until he was re-elected.
Still lying about the anti-Cleland ads? How pathetic that you can’t go the whole post without showing your damn-the-truth colors! Is there anyone who has seen the Chambliss ad who didn’t wonder what kind of crack the Dems were smoking when they got so offended — or rather, pretended to be so offended? And obviously, you have no idea what Card was saying. Such whining I’ve never heard! Let me get you a tissue.
John S.
Considering they represented the MINORITY of Democrats, as opposed to 98% of Republicans who have ridden the fell wind of politics in the name of what was ‘right’.
Jay
The point of that comment was to suggest that your claim—that the Democrats had boldly blocked some inconsequential court nominees, so why wouldn’t they do the same to Bush’s war campaign—was ridiculous. And it still is.
No it isn’t. What’s ridiculous is that Democrats were tough enough to filibuster judicial nominees, but they were too chickenshit to slow things down with respect to A WAR because it wasn’t the politically expedient thing to do. And this is when they (in the Senate) were in the majority.
Mac Buckets
Highly, highly doubtful — and a red herring, to boot. First, you’re banking on one month doing what wasn’t done in six years by two administrations, with the same CIA in charge who insisted on the “slam dunk.” And the very week of the US midterm elections, the UNSC passed Resolution 1441, which said that Iraq hadn’t verifiably disarmed its WMD programs, so was the UN really going to “shoot anything to shreds” before the elections? The facts don’t support you.
Second, Daschle’s argument was never that they needed more time to vet intelligence, was it? It was that they shouldn’t vote before the election because being on record before the election might affect the votes. It was 100% political, and 0% because of intel concerns. Some Dems obviously didn’t want the voters to know what they really thought about the major issue of the day — how disgusting is that?
Mac Buckets
Liar.
Chambliss won because they compared Cleland to Teddy Kennedy.
Mac Buckets
I don’t have the slightest respect for opinion poll figures, which is what we were talking about.
Otto Man
Clinton bombed Iraq and tightened inspections. And since there once were WMDs there and there are no longer WMDs there, I’d say those half-measures worked.
This may surprise you, but I’m not Tom Daschle. I’m also not a Republican, and that means I’m allowed to criticize my party’s leaders. (See above.)
My argument — mine, not Daschle’s — is that the vote was rushed intentionally by Bush in order to capitalize on it in the midterm elections and, in all likelihood, to get the shaky evidence past Congress before they could look too closely at it.
Can you offer any reason for why Bush pushed for a vote in October? If we absolutely needed to go to war, why the wait for another five months? Bush 41 pushed the war vote back past the midterms and was still able to launch ODS in mid-January.
Yes, I’m still lying. As are Real Clear Politics, the Washington Times, the National Review, the American Spectator, Reason magazine, USA Today, the Washington Post, PBS, the University of Georgia, the Atlanta Journal Constitution, the right-wing Georgia Reporter, CBS, the New Republic, CNN, Wikipedia, etc.
They’re ALL spreading this vile lie! Even the strongly conservative ones like the National Review, the American Spectator, and the Washington Times! You’d better start writing them and demand they get their facts straight.
While you, of course, can read minds. Here’s what Andy Card said:
If there was such an urgent need for war against Iraq in the wake of 9/11, then why not push for war in the summer? The spring? Why wait until right before the fall elections?
Otto Man
Again, I agree that the chickenshit ones should be driven out of positions of power in the party, and I’m delighted to know that most of them have.
But there were only two places on Earth where the filibustering of lower court nominees was considered a bold move for the Democrats — the Beltway and the Blogosphere. No one else gave a shit.
But with Bush and company talking about mushroom clouds, chemical weapons dropped over American cities, etc., that got people’s attention.
Alright, enough jousting. I’m missing the game.
Mac Buckets
Only in your imagination do we have anything approaching some level of evidence that the Administration “knew” such a thing. Slam dunk.
Why don’t you cite those “outright lies” about 9/11 and I’ll debunk them for you, no extra charge. I think I’ve seen them all, and they are highly…imaginative.
Mac Buckets
I’m sure you can show me an example of a Republican “blaming” the Democrats for us going to war. No one else has been able to flesh out this latest meme with any evidence, but I have faith in you, ppg!
John S.
MacBuckets just loves to make it up as he goes along.
The ad doesn’t say Cleland is Saddam Hussein, it just makes it out like they’re best pals. I guess it would be OK to run an ad with Bush and Hitler in it?
Oh that’s right, when that happened people like you all tweaked out…even though the ad didn’t say Bush was Hitler.
ppGaz
Sure. Americans were just itching to “liberate” Iraq back in 2002. The tension was palpable.
Do you actually read your own material? The people of this country did not give a rat’s ass about the troubles of Iraq, and would never have even considered committing to a war to do such a thing. I don’t care how many speeches those lying cocksuckers made.
ppGaz
Mac is just John’s mini-me. Bustin’ balls to see what he can stir up.
ppGaz
Joe Biden For President
Apparently the president is hiring Joe Biden as his Iraq policy advisor.
Mac Buckets
I read that horrible piece of assertion and uninformed regurge. He picks on incidents like the aluminum tubes and mobile labs and pretends that was the backbone of the case for war? Really? Well, just for starters, the two mobile labs weren’t found until April and May 2003, after the war had been voted on and commenced, so those were pillars of the case for war? Come on, don’t you guys at Slate have a proofreader, or are you (gasp) misleading the people? The dude is the Editor of the whole freaking magazine, and it’s like reading some kid’s comment on Balloon Juice!
And no kidding, the aluminum tubes weren’t for nukes? Well, that changes everything — the six years of statements by two administrations, the CIA director, two Secretaries of State, and six years worth of Congressmen on all Saddam’s biological, chemical, and nuclear programs must’ve been a lie, because those tubes weren’t ideal for nuclear programs!
Then to top it off, he off-handedly assumes “clear pressure” by the administration on the intel community on “their assumptions” on WMD, which 1) investigations have deemed to be non-existent and 2) conveniently ignores five years of unchallenged “Saddam has WMD and will use them” intelligence from the Clinton White House.
There’s more, but it’s a common hack piece that never goes to the main question of the “misleading” issue: the near-unanimity on the biological and chemical weapons that everyone said Saddam possessed and had not destroyed in accordance with UN Resolutions, which were the real pillars in the case for war. Why does Weisberg pretend that our history with intel on Iraq started in 2002? Does he understand what “consensus of opinion” means? Why doesn’t he ask if it is even possible to “mislead” Democrats into believing what they already said they believed?
Well, of course, it’s because he won’t like the answers.
Mac Buckets
Just keep lying. Maybe someone will believe you one day, but it doesn’t do much for your cred. Everyone who sees that ad is laughing at you.
Mac Buckets
Just posting facts, while you guys, in response, toss weak ad hominems like ten-year-old girls throwing a wet football.
Mac Buckets
That’s some real deep thinking, Otto. Only not even Clinton himself thinks the bombings worked to disarm Saddam. Only the goal was not disarmament, but ouster. Only the Duelfer Report says there were no WMD to bomb in 1998. Only…well, you get the idea.
I posted the ad. You can look at it yourself, if you dare. Tell me how it “morphs,” “compares,” puts Cleland as “best buddies” with Saddam or OBL. Come on, do it.
And did you even read those sources, or did you just throw them up, hoping no one would read them?
First one: Real Clear Politics
Actually debunks the Democrats’ lies on the ad. It busts Teresa Kerry and states from AP, “The ad, sponsored by Republican Rep. Saxby Chambliss’ Senate campaign, doesn’t directly compare Cleland and the rogue leaders but alleges the senator isn’t telling the truth when he claims to support some of President Bush’s efforts in the war against terrorism.”
Thanks for the link — I’ll bookmark that one.
Second one:Washington Times
A one-liner in the Hitler-Bush ad story. “…that used bin Laden’s and Saddam’s faces to criticize a Cleland vote on homeland security. The ad was later edited to remove their visages.” Not an accurate account, as the faces weren’t used to criticize anything, but there’s certainly no mention of a “comparison” between Cleland and OBL or Saddam. Strike Two.
Third: National Review
Talks about the “trumped up mythology” of the Cleland camp and then says (you’re not gonna like this) “Democrats make it sound as though Cleland’s opponent, the four-term Republican congressman Saxby Chambliss, ran an ad something like this: “Sen. Max Cleland,” — cue the ominous music — “is he a patriot? Georgia wants to know. Of course, nothing remotely like this ran. The case for foul play rests on a tough anti-Cleland ad that Chambliss broadcast featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn’t morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military.”
Strike Three.
Come on, Otto, if you’ve got nothing, just don’t post. You throw up links that you don’t read, and hope that no one calls you on it? Weak. Really weak.
Fourth one: American Spectator.
Another debunk of Heinz-Kerry’s whining.”For what it’s worth, though, Heinz Kerry’s pained account of the Cleland campaign bears little relation to reality.”
Strike Four.
Fifth one: Reason.
No mention of the ad at all.
Sixth one: USA Today
Publishes an outright lie. “Chambliss even ran a TV ad picturing Cleland with Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.” Obviously, USA Today didn’t see the ad, either. You can, since I posted the link, and nowhere is Cleland pictured with the other two. Not even in separate pics on the same screen. Anyway, they don’t mention any “comparison” of the three men.
I’m going to assume the rest are an equal waste of our time. Really, Otto, that was bush.
ppGaz
What’s going on, Mac. Darrell sick tonight?
Otto Man
Christ, Mac, are you retarded?
You said I was lying about the Chambliss ads showing Cleland along with Osama and Saddam, and I trotted out multiple bits of evidence as proof of their existence. The conservative sources only put a different spin on the ads, they don’t deny their existence. (The Reason cite is down in the comments from someone who saw it.) The other sources, mainstream media and liberal political papers, do so as well. Funny you didn’t address them.
Whatever, I’m done. You’re clearly not interested in anything remotely close to reality, just more fluffing of the Bush administration. Jeff Gannon’s old job is still available. Why don’t you go see if you can get it? You’d be a natural.
Steve S
So, now turning back to reality and leaving the John Cole Reality Distortion field behind…
What’s the Presidents plan for getting us out of Iraq again?
ppGaz
It’s Joe Biden’s plan …
Tonight, in a speech about 3 miles from where I sit here in Phoenix, the disgusting little president said:
“We’ll stay in Iraq until the job is done … and not a minute longer.”
Go figure. He might want to read tomorrow’s NYT, as there seems to be growing problems over there:
Whoops
Mac Buckets
Just watching the game, playing a poker tourney online, and doing a little commenting. I’m multi-tasking tonight, so I can waste time more efficiently.
John S.
You’re a riot. Anyone who watches that video and doesn’t draw the same conclusion as myself, John McCain:
or Chuck Hagel:
Is comprehensionally-challenged.
Mac Buckets
No, Otto, I didn’t. I said you were lying when you wrote:
“Depicting as an ally.” Not “showing Cleland along with.” Big difference. If you don’t read what you write, why should anyone bother reading it? And I’d back off calling other people retarded when you can’t remember your own post even though I blockquoted it!
I never said the ads didn’t exist — dude, I freaking linked to the ad! I said the ads didn’t “depict him as an ally” of anyone, and most, if not all, of your sources agree with me, as would anyone who actually saw the ad. Seriously, put down Michael Irvin’s pipe for a few minutes.
You have some balls to waste my time with six or seven bogus links that only support my point, and then busting my horns for not going down to the eighth or ninth one to find some lib who is also lying about the ad, an ad which I linked to. No brains, but plenty balls.
Yes, you’re done, all right. If I were you, and had embarrassed myself by lying so often, I’d post under a different name from now on. But I’m the one not interested in the reality of the Cleland ad (Seen the ad yet? Of course not!).
Mac Buckets
Whatever. I’ve linked to the ad. The AP wire is “comprehensionally-challenged.” Otto listed a bunch of sources showing that the ad didn’t compare, link, or connect Cleland with anyone.
Meanwhile, you are still saying that
Now there’s comprehensionally-challenged for you! Seen the ad? Care to back up that ludicrous lie? Of course not.
McCain and Hagel are as free to be as wrong as you are — they probably didn’t see the ad, either. I’ll let whoever wants to see the ad judge for himself.
Kimmitt
This post is a prime of example of why Thune really did us Dems a favor. Man, Daschle just has an absolute tin ear for this stuff.
scs
Okay I will summarize the entire situation again because I’m bored and I can’t sleep. 9/11 happened. Saddam was one of the only leaders to praise it. Anthrax was released. The only countries thought to be working on that kind of anthrax were US, Russia, and Iraq,(with their Mrs. Anthrax). Back then, Mohammed Atta was thought to have been observed in Prague meeting with Iraqi agents, still not disproven completely (the passport stamp thing doesn’t count in my opinion). Tentative contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Suspicious information about Niger and yellowcake (still not completely, beyond a doubt, disproven), other info coming in from exiles. His past use of chemical weapons and his past aggressive behavior. Saddam’s flouting inspections. What the hell else do you want?!? With the information we had back then, ANYONE should have invaded Iraq. Probably Bush wasn’t sure if this or that piece of info was correct, but if anyone looked at the big picture, there was no reason to let this nonsense go on in Iraq any longer, and the American public knew that and supported it, based not just on WMD, but on the big picture.
And as to Bush “lied”, we all know the Senate Intelligence commitee had access to ANY info they wanted from the CIA. If Bush lied, the Senate leadership could have gotten the info from the CIA that should have set them straight. If the Senate Intel Com thought Bush was spewing forth lies or misleading people, they could have loudly gone on air to proclaim Bush a liar. But as I remember, most Senate leaders vouched for Iraq WMD at the time, based on their reports from the CIA, not based on what Bush told them. As we saw from what Bob Graham said about the NIE, the general conclusion from the CIA, all things considered, was that Saddam was working on WMD. So although we may be able to pick apart this or that statement from Bush now, the general accessment he had accurately reflected the intelligence at the time. Why are we even still debating this???
John S.
Mac-
Post the link 1000 times and let everyone see it again. The bottom line is that showing that opening scene is for pure shock value – nothing more. It was put there to get people to associate Clelalnd with the enemy.
It was offensive and cheap, which is why Chambliss REMOVED IT FROM THE AD. If you are too stupid or dishonest to grasp that, then you must be one of these new Republicans that prefer perception to reality.
John S.
Too bad Graham didn’t vote for the resolution, which means that the conclusion that HE drew was that going to war was a bad idea.
The Disenfranchised Voter
Let me start off by stating that I actually agreed with the Iraq War, at first. I believed in what the Administration said and I also believed that we should have never propped up Saddam in the first place. I even spoke badly about the protestors and said they were only protesting because they didn’t like Bush. I later realized this was not the case.
Once I found out that the Bush Administration lied to get us to goto war I was completely against the war in Iraq. Never, EVER, should the President lie to the population in order to gather support for a war. It is inexcusable.
Bush and Company knew that the only way to gather enough support to goto war with Iraq would be to claim that Iraq was an imminent threat to us. So they decided to use fake documents, imply falsehoods, and outright lie. Of course this worked in the short run, but as anyone can now see the support for the war has greatly fallen.
On top of all this, there is irrefutable proof that key figures in the Bush Administration KNEW that Saddam wasn’t even a threat to his neighbors, let alone the US.
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.
I just really don’t understand how anyone can actually think that the Administration really believed Saddam had WMD.
Even my brother-in-law, who is an independent voter and Bush supporter, admits that he thinks the Administration deliberately lied to get us to goto war with Iraq.
It is about time that the rest of you stopped living in denial.
They obviously lied to get the needed support for their ideological agenda.
Ok. Suit yourself.
Key word “had”. Notice he is speaking in past tense about WMD even BEFORE the war started.
But they did, so how can that be true?
Good luck with that one, Mac.
And this one too. How can you stick up for these lying bastards?
The main reason why I put most parts in bold was that the Administration was making claims of knowledge. They were not saying “we believe Saddam has” they were saying “we KNOW Saddam has”. Either they knew it or they didn’t and it turns out that obviously they didn’t KNOW it. Therefore when they claimed to KNOW he had WMD, they were lying.
Have fun trying explain each one away though. There are some real doosies in there. I particularlly can’t wait to see you explain some of Condi’s and Rumsfelds quotes.
ppGaz
This thread has turned into what I would call Bullpen Banter. The kind of stuff the guys in the bullpen talk about during a boring game.
But the crowd mainly remembers the home runs, the plays at the plate, and the final score.
Remember that, Mac, as you watch 2006 unfold.
Mac Buckets
What’s offensive, cheap, stupid, and dishonest is your refusal to admit you lied about the ads depicting Cleland and Saddam/bin Laden as “best buddies,” and Otto’s refusal to admit he lied when he said the ads showed Cleland as “an ally” of the two, even though you guys are trying to run away from your statements as fast as your little legs can carry you. Your witless, braindead parroting of DNC whining shows your true colors. You obviously care nothing of reality, and will openly lie about recent, documented history to slander political opponents…and when you’re inevitably caught, you don’t apologize and admit you were lying or ignorant, but try to cover your lies by obfuscation and backpedeling. That’s why I have no choice but to consider you guys intellectual lightweights, if not outright trolls.
John S.
Nothing is more offensive than you Mac, you festering poltroon. I didn’t lie about squat, and if you have a problem with my characterization – tough shit. The ad tries to make the point that Cleland’s voting record has somehow aided and comforted Saddam and bin Laden, and in a political ad that’s the same as saying that they are pals.
Sorry, but this is YOUR modus operandi – not mine. All the projection, repetition and conviction in the world won’t make this rubbish true. You are a known intellectual lightweight and troll, and you do a fine job of living up to that reputation.
Speaking of not owning up to being wrong…tell me again how “imminent” and “gathering” are NOT synonyms.
Mac Buckets
Just as the Clinton Administration “knew” Saddam had WMD in 1998, which you must accept as false now. And just as the dozens of Democrats (to whom you strangely give a pass, for someone who’s [cough] not a Democrat) had been saying for six years at the time of the war. What you and I don’t understand about intelligence gathering and analysis could fill a library, but it mostly boils down to consensus of opinion. As one intel analyst said, there were hundreds of pieces of evidence suggesting Saddam didn’t have WMD — and there were thousands of pieces suggesting he did. Consensus was clear around the world and in both American poltiical parties, and, just like President Clinton and the Democrats, President Bush used the language of certainty in the face of that consensus, because leaders, once they make a decision, can’t hedge and must at least act certain and sure.
It is now commonly accepted that the intel was wrong, and that Iraq had likely destroyed the WMD in secret (in violation of UN Resolutions) so they wouldn’t have to admit and dismantle programs that they wished to restart as soon as sanctions were lifted. Being wrong is not a lie, or misleading, and I would say that being wrong in this case doesn’t make the war the wrong thing to do. It wasn’t a lie when the CIA said that it was a slam dunk that Saddam had WMD, it wasn’t a lie when Clinton was saying that Saddam was a WMD threat, and it wasn’t a lie when Bush said that Saddam was a WMD threat. The broad consensus of intelligence was driving the decision-making for both presidents.
What I find amusing is that when Powell, brand new on the job at that point, said that Saddam was contained (which he soon famously recanted, since it was a stupid statement to make in the face of two years of US policy which assumed that containment was a failure), or Rice says that Saddam hadn’t rebuilt his military (which was true, but we weren’t worried about the National Guard, were we?), you take this as a metaphysical certitude that they “knew,” but when others said Saddam had WMD, they were “lying.” It seems just as plausible that Powell was hedging in front of an Arab audience to avoid the uncomfortable question asked of him: whether sanctions worked, or whether they were just Arab-killers. Powell must’ve known that US policy since 1998 had been forged on the premise that sanctions didn’t work, and only killed Iraqis while Saddam got rich and continued WMD programs. Of course, the correct answer turned out to be “a little of both,” but Powell didn’t seem to want to give even an slightly uncomfortable answer in front of an audience that certainly would’ve been hostile to the correct answer, or the accepted US-policy answer.
Maybe you can answer two questions about Bush/Cheney/Neocons “lying us into war.” 1) If Bush/Cheney/Neocons were so bent and evil as to send troops to war on a lie, then why were they not bent and evil enough to do the simplest thing that could’ve put them in the clear and won them election after election: plant WMD once we were there? 2) If the Democrats were “lying” about Saddam’s WMDs, too, since they had the same conclusion since 1997 that Bush had, and had largely of the same intel (like the defection in 1995 of Saddam’s brother-in-law) and the same CIA director, why didn’t one member of either Party expose the other side as lying about one of the biggest issues facing America in the 1998, 2000, or 2002 elections? Are we to believe they called a liar’s truce in one of the most partisan times in US history?
Mac Buckets
OK, I see — you’re just a moron. Everyone reading this can accept that now, and move on.
Because they still don’t mean the same thing. Nor is “imminent” synonymous for “possible,” even though it too was on your thesaurus list — because, as I pointed out before, you also seem to be too stupid to realize how a thesaurus works, even though I clipped the caveats from thesaurus.com to try to help you. Why I try, I’ll never know…
Mac Buckets
This is still Spring Training, ppg. We’re shagging balls in the outfield and getting our running in. There haven’t been any home runs yet, nor anything anyone will remember come World Series time.
OK, I guess that about kills the baseball metaphor.
John S.
Projection will get you nowhere, except brownie points with your like-minded posters of refuse.
The funniest thing about your mindless drivel is how you willfully fight against Occam’s Razor. You want to conflate this entire point into something having to do with intent, meaning and subjective use, but in the end you stated a falsehood that you cannot bear to admit.
You plainly stated that “imminent” and “gathering” are NOT synonyms. The simple truth is that they are. Perhaps in the context used they don’t have the same definition, but that is hardly the point. And if you knew how to use a thesaurus yourself, you’d know that when two words appear together under a listing that means they ARE synonyms.
How did you get to be such a pompous ass, anyway? Years of hard work? Dedicated practice?
Mac Buckets
Fine. Go tell everyone that “imminent” is synonymous with “possible,” because you saw it in an online thesaurus. Just prepare for everyone with brains to tell you you’re wrong.
John S.
I’ll take “It takes hard work to be a pompous ass” for $100, Alex.
Main Entry: imminent
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: at hand
Synonyms: approaching, brewing, close, coming, expectant, fast-approaching, following, forthcoming, gathering, immediate, impending, in prospect, in store, in view, ineluctable, inescapable, inevasible, inevitable, likely, looming, menacing, near, nearing, next, nigh, overhanging, possible, probable, threatening, to come, unavoidable, unescapable
Yes, “imminent” and “possible” ARE synonyms, although you wouldn’t likely find too many contexts of usage where the two terms are interchangeable.
Why do you hate reality, Mac?
Mac Buckets
Not to those of us who speak English, they’re not.
“Possible” and “imminent” don’t have the same or nearly the same meaning. They are not figurative or symbolic substitutes for one another. Therefore, they are not synonyms. Nor are “imminent” and “gathering.”
Look at Merriam-Webster :
Not synonyms, but just related words, just as the dictionary definition of synonym would suggest.
Regardless, it was clear what Bush meant — you remember, that discussion that actually has a point — but you just want to masturbate over irrelevancies like what a synonym is, so you can pretend like you caught me in a “falsehood.” Pathetic.
John S.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
I can’t even believe you wasted your time posting that bullshit, or that I bothered to read it, or that I bothered to respond…
All hail the king of mental masturbation – MacBuckets.
Your sceptre awaits, my liege.
Barry
As a break from Mac Buckets, John (Cole), my thoughts:
In the movie ‘Animal House’, after trashing the car belonging to a pledge’s brother, the frat president put his arm around the pledge’s shoulder, and in a friendly voice says, “let’s face it – you screwed up. You trusted us.”.
That’s the position that Bush is in now, telling the American people that the Democrats are weak or foolish for trusting him, that they share in the responsibility for a war. A war which the GOP wanted, pushed for, and used shamelessly.
I don’t think that that’s a winning strategy for Bush or the GOP, outside of the 30% rock solid base. People who believe that realize the implication, which is that trusting the GOP isn’t a good idea.
The Disenfranchised Voter
You’re a real jackass. I don’t think they lied because they are evil, I think they lied because they felt the ends justified the means. That the only way to get our country to support the war was to hype the threat. They are neo-cons, they think they can spread democracy through military force.
They aren’t evil, they are just severly misguided.