Democrats & Liberals Archives

Nice post Henri,
It’s sad that most people especially in America find reality so hard to stomach that they buy into lies that are sometimes so blatantly obvious, you wonder how on earth the liars even found the guts to publicize them.

I couldn’t agree with you more. On the bright side, however, Bush’s jokes about the missing WMDs may actually serve his opponents by clearly illustrating the fact that he is not taking the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq seriously. That illustration could speak powerfully to voters who supported him and the invasion of Iraq previously due to the threat of those weapons.

Jarin - I strongly suspect the Kerry campaign is working on something like that as we speak.

ceejayoz - Very possibly, however that might be a mistake. Allowing Bush’s words to speak for themselves is one thing, but including them in a campaign is liable to be seen as negative and unfair by the public, since the comments were made at an event where it is something of a tradition for candidates to make fun of themselves. The issue of the appropriateness of such jokes may be lost if brought forward chiefly by the opposing candidate and his election campaign.

“He thinks taking us to war on false pretenses is funny?”

Absolutely. The deaths of Americans in Iraq is his fault, and to think that he takes it lightly is astonishing. I thought the “bring it on” comment was basically an incitement for enemies to kill Americans, and this strikes me as the same sort of attitude. He simply doesn’t take things seriously.

We have serious problems, and we need serious people to deal with them. Bush’s time is over.

Serious people never laugh or poke fun at themselves? I guess if the left keeps insisting that WMD was the only justification given for toppling a mass-murdering tyrant (the same left who previously said that oil was the only justification—and then abandoned this line when it no longer became plausible), then you really could call jokes about finding WMD some sort of insult to those who have to fight the war. But this premise is not one shared by the 63% of Americans who even now say in polls that the war was justified or—if the information I’ve seen is correct—the majority of those serving in Iraq.

I don’t think the jokes were funny—so I’m not really defending them—but those Washington insider roast things rarely are. I didn’t find Clinton’s jokes about interns and impeachment funny either.

Do you think it would have been funnier to tell jokes about what was really found in Iraq—say, dungeons full of children or bloody meathooks in palace basements? Honestlty, we all need to lighten up a little.

Henri—

You must have been reading my mind this morning as my wife and I sat discussing this very topic. I quipped to her that Bushes arrogance had reach an all time high, if he has burrow so far in the sand as to believe that the American public would laugh along with him, and more American soldiers die on foreign soil in a war that never should have been fought. This man infuriates me like no other President before him; my feels for him are transgressing rapidly from loathing to revulsion. And what infuriates me more is when those who should know better, those better much educated and endowed with much more wisdom come on padded knees to his defense, and try to explain away his most recent trip to lala land. And more infuriating still is the half of this country’s populace that still supports this simpleton, this moron, this dim-witted arrogant boy who would be King!

Martin—

Bush did not take this country to War because there were “dungeons full of children or bloody meathooks(sic) in palace basements,” the President stood before the world and claimed the reason we were going to War was because Iraq had WMD, and the Sadam was willing to use them on America. Forget what the Left said the war was about, they were not and are not in position to send American troops in harms way, Bush was and is. It is frightening that otherwise intelligence people can be so easily led astray by a dimwitted arrogant puppet, and more frightening that you, and they still support him after all the recent revelations come to light that he and his play-box pals have played way too fast and loose with the truth, and in the process caused the death of countless Iraqi’s and some 600 American fighting men and women. When is enough enough? What line does he have to cross before you and the 63% of American’s that still amazingly support him say to yourself, hey this guy is dangerous, he needs to be held accountable, he needs to go?

“The President stood before the world and claimed the reason we were going to War was because Iraq had WMD, and the Sadam (sic) was willing to use them on America.”

True enough, or partially true enough—and I’m all for getting to bottom of why Bush, like Clinton, Kerry, the intelligence agencies of the entire world (and even Clarke—who said very clearly and on the record that Saddam had such weapons), made such an egregious misreading of the facts. But not all of us—those 63% of Americans you dismiss included—are quite ready to rewrite the history of why we went to war to benefit John Kerry and those factions of the Left that were calling Bush Hitler even after we went into Afghanistan (which, contrary to what you’d have to assume listening to Clarke) happened long BEFORE we touched one little hair on Saddam’s head.

There was a very broad justification given—including the use of WMD repeatedly against his own people and in the Iran-Iraq conflict, the failure to cooperate with UN resolutions, and yes, the ongoing nature of human rights abuses. I agree with you that the literal presence of WMD was hyped (as opposed to the known fact that Hussein was seeking to acquire such weapons). And I agree with you that Bush has something to answer for in over-stating this part of this case in an attempt to convince the UN to live up to its resolutions. In that sense, he does have something to answer for—satisfied?

yes he does…however, an apology for joking about not being able to find WMD’s at a recent fund-raiser might be a start.

Part of Bush’s arrogance is his unwillingness to apologise for mistakes….

If a Democrat has made those comments…..the GOP would have nailed him to a cross…..

Henri:

I certainly agree for the need for more civility in public. I think our country may be ready for decline over the fact. When issues cannot be debated for their merit, without character assasination, it leads to a country where the eventual winner has so many enemies that it is hard to lead. And then of course “what goes around comes around”.

This campaign has been discusting on both sides. Kerry calling us (republicans) Liars and Cheats, Bush showing great insensitivity to the families of the dead with his humor makes me think that our culture needs to be taken down a peg or two.

I can’t support Kerry for a number of reasons. But if there were a third candidate, that was moderate in both policy and tone I would be prepapared to vote for them with enthusiasm.

So since I started as a Bush supporter, and Kerry hasn’t shown me much of anything, I’m gonna “dance with the one that brought me”.

In the mean time I stand with you in your desire to have a more civil society.

Craig

Martin—

Given all you have just said, I guess the real question is, will Bush still get your vote?

Serious people never laugh or poke fun at themselves?

From my site:

I guess the whole thing is a joke to President Bush; the six hundred dead US soldiers and their grieving parents, spouses, and children; the three thousand US troops who were wounded and permanently crippled; the hundreds of of thousands of US soldiers and civilians suffering hardship and violence in Iraq in a fruitless quest for WMDs that President Bush had “no doubt” were there.

Yep. He must think that’s pretty funny, and I bet it got plenty of chuckles from his buddies in the news media.

I’d just like to remind the Republicans that it’s not too late to impeach this clown and run John McCain instead. Do what I did: email your elected representatives. Listening to you is their job.

and of course on Fox News…the attitude was”

“He made a joke! Everyone Relax……”

bite me FoxNews…you partisan )(*&%#)@*&#)

Craig,
Quote
“This campaign has been discusting on both sides. Kerry calling us (republicans) Liars and Cheats, Bush showing great insensitivity to the families of the dead with his humor makes me think that our culture needs to be taken down a peg or two.”

Craig
The truth about John Kerry’s remark is that it had nothing to do with rank and file Republicans who are by and large patriots and decent people which he well knows. It was about the pack of Harpies who protect Bush’s image with their brand of character assasination that ruined John McCain as the best Presidential candidate from the Republican Party in my lifetime. You are a sophisticated human being and know better than to broaden a remark not intended for publication into a generic indictment of all Republicans.
Henri

Henri:

Last night Bill Clinton asked the democrats to remember that in 2000 the Bush campaign made sure North Carolina voters knew McCain had a nonwhite child.

What was he trying to do??? What was his purpose in bringing race into the election?

Photographers refused to take unflattering pictures of FDR in the 30’s, and 40’s. What is becoming of us as a people?

What is the point of stating that Bush is a liar about WMD??

I think we are in danger of becomeing a declining people because of character assasination. It polarized debate away from these crictical issues.

We are at war for God’s sake. While our soldiers are dying we are taking cheap shots at each other in order to gain or keep power. The whole thing from BOTH SIDES completely disgusts me.

Craig

V. Edward Martin: Bush has screwed up many times and on several fronts in my opinion. I howl, call him names, throw things at the TV—the people downstairs probably think I’m a Democrat. :) But at this point, unless somebody actually produces a video of Bush making out with Osama Bin Laden in the Rose Garden, I know he’s going to get not only my vote but (additional) campaign contributions.

That’s because for me the standard isn’t perfection (and I assume you Dems feel the same way about the candidates you support). I decide whether on balance a candidate is in line with my views, and when he fails to support them, if he is at least acting reasonably and with good intentions. Like all politicians, Bush panders too much to what he percieves as his base, but when Jesus Christ is running for president, well then I’ll vote for him instead (and he’ll undoubtedly lose).

I fault Bush over WMDs not because I think he lied (everybody else also believed they were there, Hussein had the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise which he refused to do, and in today’s climate a president has to err—if it even was an error—on the side of caution).

No, his mistake in my view was in overstressing that single part of the rationale for war in an attempt to bring the UN around. I wish there had been less talk of WMDs and more about the gross human rights abuses taking place in Iraq and Hussein’s desire to acquire and demonstrated willingness to use those weapons. In the end, like the majority of Americans, I think he did the right, necessary and only thing—and for that he has my admiration and gets my vote.

Martin:
you forget that it was the war on TERRORISM.But not really state sponsored terrorism, so if Bush had to make a case for war, he had to say that Saddam was planning some Al Qaeda -like attack, so that it would fit with the general concept of eradicating terrorist organisations bent on destroying the world.
Think carefully if Bush had said something like “We need to attack Iraq because Saddam is guilty of gross human rights violations and is treating his people like crap” then he wouldn’t have gotten the support of the people, and a debate focussing on the legitimacy of interference without due cause would have ensued.
He had to make it seem like there was some imminent threat to America, which unfortunately for him, there wasn’t, so he did the next best thing- he lied.
Or you know even if it was all just a mistake and he honestly believed there were WMD’s, he really shouldn’t have been joking about it. Look at some pictures of the people affected by the war, your sense of humour kind of shrivels up after that.

As I recall no one’s arms were amputated during Clinton’s little indiscretions( though I admit, i didn’t think he was very funny then either)

Martin - first let me say that your last comment is probably the most reasonable and ‘real’ statement I’ve heard a Republican make about their support for Bush. If he is pushing your agenda (mostly), then more power to you! - I can’t believe, knowing what Bush’s agenda is, that anyone would support it. But if you do, and you still support him, then you have an interesting world-view and I admire your resolve. :)

everybody else also believed they were there,

You need to clarify that a little: Most US intelligence analysts believed they were probably there. There were intelligence agencies in other UN countries who weren’t even that sure.

Hussein had the burden of proof to demonstrate otherwise which he refused to do, and in today’s climate a president has to err—if it even was an error—on the side of caution

Blix said he was satisfied with the cooperation he was getting from Iraq. There was no sign of any WMDs.

And how far do you go to err on the side of caution? Is Packistan next? They were the Taliban’s major backers, they still support Islamic terrorist organizations, and they have nukes. Can’t be too careful.

What about China and Saudi Arabia?

“The United States believes China is still cooperating with Saudi Arabia on missiles and with Pakistan on nuclear technology and missiles, despite Beijing’s promises to control arms proliferation, U.S. officials said.”

Can’t be too careful.

Seems like once you head down that road, it’s hard to decide where to stop for sandwiches.

Martin—would you be so quick to forgive your doctor if he misdiagnose an illness, or took a lung when he was supposed to remove a kidney? His intentions were good; he just made an honest mistake. Would you still take your family to that doctor?

The body count (American, Iraqi, Spanish, British, etc) is rising daily in Iraq as a result of Bush’s rush to War against the protestations of the world. His policy’s are failing and have put the country in grave financial risk, a risk my children and yours (if you have any) will have to deal with years from now. His actions and those of the Republican led Congress have been are continue to be irresponsible, and just plain wrong. We are a nation of almost 300 million, and his policies enrich just the richest 1% of us.

And while I respect your opinion and right to it, I still have to question the wisdom of your (and the other 50% of my fellow citizens) choice to continue to support a man who has gotten it wrong so many times.

A closer analogy would be this: Would I forgive the doctor who insists on performing a deep, invasive and expensive surgery to remove a malignant tumor, or would I just take the two aspirins reccomended by Kerry and call Dr. Chirac in the morning?

Martin, If you are to err on the side of caution in a consistent fashion, in terms of invading countries and fighting pre-emptive wars, we must err in terms of caution on both figuring out what needs pre-emptive action, and taking that action. It does us no good to spend good money, and the lives of good soldiers jumping at half-baked, half true threats, when we could be defending our country from clear threats.

Well, I agree, Stephen. But I think that Iraq had very clearly passed that threshhold.

Perhaps we just disgree on what consitutes a “clear threat.” To me, a “clear threat” is not a chemical attack of the New York subways or a mushroom cloud over DC. A guy knowm to have used chemical weapons against his own people and to be seeking additional such weapons, to have sponsored an attempted terrorist assassination of a US president and to be publicly sponsoring suicide bombers—that guy needed to be gotten rid of depsite the delicate senibilities of Chirac, Kofi Annan and the Democratic party.

Martin
Changing the subject is a favorite ploy of political party members when a leader of their party has done something improper. The absence of Weapons of Mass Destruction is only one of the clear failure’s of your President to prove his case of an imminent threat from Iraq. He posed his case for war based on an imminent threat because those two words make preemptive war legal.

It is not in Bush’s interest to recognize that he has damaged our credibility internationally either through ignorance of the truth or through duplicity. Either is cause for us to remove him from office in this election.

It is in your best interest not to fool yourself about the idea that using one excuse to get us into war and another to justify it when that one proves untrue is good for our nation. None of what you say is untrue but all of it is meaningless in the context of what was said before the war. We all use such tactics to prove our position in these matters. They are all equally meaningless except one and that is a requirement to use truth in committing our armed forces to war. Every time in our history we have not done so it has turned out badly, and it will here too.

The world knows Bush for a liar in regard to more than one issue now. We here are too driven by partisanship to resolve this issue based on a requirement for integrity in our Presidents. There has never been one in my lifetiume who has said one thing and done another on this scale. You are welcome to him I would rather have Clinton back than Bush and I don’t like Clinton. His lies cost no lives and built no terrorist armies for our enemies to use against us.
Henri

Um, when did Bush say that Iraq posed an “imminent threat?” To change the subject is one thing—to present fiction as fact is even worse (even if that fiction is he daily fare served up in Le Monde).

And Bush has built no “terrorist armies” either. What he has done is proven himself one of a tiny handful of leaders in the world willing to confront and dismantle those terrorist armies instead of surrender to them or look the other way as they prepare more events like 9-11.

Clinton, it could be argued, by doing nothing about Al Qaida (even refusing to accept custody of him we now know, when he was offered up with a silver bow) did in fact build terrorist armies by ensuring them that they would have a real chance of success in the face of flacid American leadership (well, not that flacid, but we don’t have to go there). Kerry, it could be argued, is building terrorist armies by demonstrating for all to see that the West lacks a united front in the war against terror.

Of course I’m not actually arguing that Kerry is a boon to terrorists and other anti-American types who he emboldens and encourages—that he in fact has the blood of American soldiers on his hands. I’m not saying it, mind you—I’d never sink to the level of the Terry Mcaullife slime machine—but in the words of Howard Dean, it’s sure an interesting theory and it’s one that’s out there and needs to be looked at.

Sorry—the “him” I mention in paragraph 3 is Osama bin Laden, who chased Clinton out of Somalia (almost literally with his—Clinton’s— pants down.)

Martin,

First of all, the Sudan story is a conservative myth.

Second:

And Bush has built no “terrorist armies” either. What he has done is proven himself one of a tiny handful of leaders in the world willing to confront and dismantle those terrorist armies instead of surrender to them or look the other way as they prepare more events like 9-11.

What President Bush has done is legitimize the terrorist’s view of themselves as “freedom fighters”, rather than treating them as the common criminals, thugs, and murderers that they are.

The fact that President Bush is only “one of a tiny handful of leaders” should make him (and us) question whether he’s actually on the right track. People who “go against the flow” are sometimes proven to be geniuses in retrospect, but more often they’re just not very bright. It’s just common sense to do a sanity check if you find yourself in that situation.

And if the police fight criminals they do the same—they’re just “legitimizing” those criminals’ sense of self-worth? Well, I suppose that’s true, but don’t see it as any argument against law enforcement.

If getting bombed, incinerated and machine-gunned makes terrorists and tyrants feel good about themselves on their way to the virgins of paradise, well, good for them.

Look, here’s the problem, Martin. A war on terror means this country having to get the cooperation of Middle East countries. You only have to glimpse the long sordid history of American counterterrorism in the middle east to know that part of what hamstrung us was the lack of real genuine cooperation on the part of the nations in that region. And now Bush has gone and invaded and occupied an Arab nation on justifications he’s having trouble selling even in America. He’s confirmed the worst predictions of Osama bin Laden, and his actions haven’t even done real damage to the real terrorists out there. It’s not self-esteem that we’ve given them. It’s the esteem of those we could have made into our allies in this, had we not done something so neo-colonialist.

Martin
you’re misunderstanding completely. You can’t equate the role of the police with the role of the President in this case.
It should be obvious that when Bush went into the Iraq war he did so without being able to provide sufficient justification. The common sentiment in the rest of the world is that he did so with full knowledge that Iraq didn’t posses WMD.
Sine the govt. hasn’t been able to provide any concrete evidence that Saddam posed a threat, this merely provides terrorists with the perfect excuse to gain the moral support of the people of their countries, by saying that America is out to destroy Islam and is trying its hand at world domination.( cough )
Because the Bush govt. cannot provide any legitimate reason for the war, terrorists will make up their own reasons and then use these reasons as a means to justify their attacks, and also recruit new, eager soldiers, bent on [reventing America from launching it’s crusade against everything they hold dear.