Democrats & Liberals: Archives

I find it very odd that the very reason we went to war in the first place has become such a non-issue for most Americans. At some point this country is going to wake up and realize they’ve been hoodwinked — and unfortunately, I fear it will be long after Bush has bankrupted the country through unnecessary wars and exchanged a working social security program for one that favors the already rich.

Ted Rall has a really good editorial called, “The Normalization Of Horror,” that encapsulates this pretty well. Where’s the outrage over our country sanctioning the use of premanent concentration camps, torture, and the rationale for war that wasn’t? I cannot ascribe America’s loss of moral compass to anything more or less than the hard right making political hay out of the 9/11 by whipping their base into a frenzy of “ends justifies the means” revenge. And we don’t even get that.

The British did a thorough inquiry of their intelligence and found that it was flawed but that the Blair government did not lie. The same is true of George Bush. At the time, the reasons for war looked compelling. Most Democrats, including John Kerry who was on the intelligence committee well before Bush became president, agreed.

Was regime change in Iraq a U.S. policy? Yes, Bill Clinton declared that in 1998. Did George Bush pursue that policy aggressively? Also yes. In light of what we know today was it a good policy? Probably not, but wait until after the elections. Did George Bush act in good faith? Yes. Nobody has found any evidence that he didn’t believe the intelligence he was given. Should the intelligence services be overhauled? Yes and they are.

I know you guys like to speculate about the past. I also sometimes find it amusing. But the probable reason nobody is getting very excited about this new finding is that it is not new. Everyone who wanted to do so already castigated Bush for this last year. None of us actually has to think up any new arguments. We can all just cut and paste what we said before because nothing has really changed.

It was a prominent feature in the election last year. Bush still won. The question is what to do next, not what we should have done in 2003. We all know what we should have done after it has been done. Much harder to know before.

In responding to this post I get a real strong feeling of daja vu. Maybe that is because we really have been over this old news several times before. There is a path on our keyboards

As I wrote in the Red column, accusations that come from across the aisle are abundant and seemingly ineffective. When presented this way, accusations really seem to be more partisan bickering than true concern for accountability. There are assertions that this payment is illegal without any investigation and there’s a nice low blow on Social Security thrown in there as well. It’s hardly a “demand for official inquiry” as you claim in your article.

My appreciation to Sen. Specter for calling for action which will help resolve this story.

AParker,

If you could supply examples of these ‘accusations’ from the Left other than calls for a thorough investigation, I’d like the see them. So too, an example of someone actually calling the payment illegal, instead of a call to investigate if they were illegal.

I will not quibble with the fact that the NYTimes’ article you linked, included a line stating several Democrats demanding an investigation of the President, but you do underestimate us over here.

You know as well as I do, that the Bush administration does not react to anything in an altruistic manner, but only if it is about to become politically damaging and unavoidable.

Jeff H,

Thanks for bringing up the Ted Rall column. He is a bookmarked favorite of mine, and I have read that particular piece.

Bert -

My example comes from the very letter you linked to, and called the link “yet it is the Democrats who are on record demanding an official inquiry.” There is no call for any inquiry in that letter, rather it contains charges of guilt and unneeded questions about Social Security. The letter also refers to the “illegality of these actions taken by your administration”. (See the last paragraph on the first page.) I’m not underestimating anyone, I’m merely going off of your sources.

I’m all for investigation of the questionable advertising choices this administration has made, but I’m pointing out how valid calls for accountability can be written out as partisan ammunition and relatively ignored as such.

Not to split hairs AParker,

You stated having accusations (plural) of your own, in abundance (plural). I did not think my accusation fit your description, because it actually cites real laws (the annotations of which you conveniently ignore), the violations of which is good enough for me.

Bottom line, if you were truly interested in getting to the truth, who and how others ask for such an investigation should not matter - because ultimately it will have no bearing on the results. If you’re confident in the righteousness in what you’re doing, relatively minor sniping from the Left could easily be shrugged off.

Making it into what now seems to be your main focus, turns it into partisan political damage control.

Bert -

First off:

because it actually cites real laws (the annotations of which you conveniently ignore), the violations of which is good enough for me.

I did not ignore the annotations, or the list of violations; rather I support an investigation, rather than accepting these claims as truth.

Let me clarify my position. These types of accusations happen frequently (I’m not referring to a plethora of attacks surrounding this one issue), and when they come from across the aisle, they tend to be labeled as partisan attacks. I’m not shrugging off any of the accusations. You read my article on the other side, I’m obviously not standing behind the administrations policy of propaganda, I’m just saying that the tendency in Washington is to dismiss cross-aisle accusations.

Bottom line, if you were truly interested in getting to the truth, who and how others ask for such an investigation should not matter

Sure, ideally, you’re correct. This is proof of exactly how interested in truth Washington actually is. We’re making the same point. I’m pointing out the truth of how Washington ignores calls for accountability which come from the other party, I’m not actually standing for it.

Making it into what now seems to be your main focus, turns it into partisan political damage control.

I’m not doing it, it’s already happened, and will continue to happen. I don’t like it and neither do you. I’m calling for more accountability within parties so that there’s less of an argument about the validity of such calls. See my comment about Sen. Specter. His calls are being answered. Once we see accountability calls within the party, there is action. Should it be different? Yes, but we have to work within the framework of what’s already established.

You paint me as supporting the viewpoint that Dems can’t request investigations into Republican scandal, or that Republicans are justified in ignoring such requests. This is absolutely incorrect, I’m simply describing the way it is. I advocate parties keeping themselves responsible, as requests from within the party seem to be the ones that get the ball rolling.

Let me also say, in regards to this mentality:

who and how others ask for such an investigation should not matter - because ultimately it will have no bearing on the results. If you’re confident in the righteousness in what you’re doing, relatively minor sniping from the Left could easily be shrugged off.

This is idealism at its finest. Yes, it shouldn’t matter who calls for an investigation, and no, it won’t affect the results. But this sniping? It could ideally be shrugged off. But we do not have an ideal situation in Washington. Sniping gives the other party ammunition in the argument not to investigate. Of course it’s weak ammunition logically, but publically it can make a difference in opinion. How many politicians skirt scandals by claiming a partisan plot to discredit them? How many people believe it?

This type of idealist thinking only gives the okay to propagate more of these snippy letters, which only serve to worsen a bad situation.

You get the Leader you deserve. You voted for Bush. Now pay the price for your lack of vision.

AParker,

You then have truly impressed me if what you’ve written is sincere, and I apologies for jumping to conclusions and painting you in a partisan light.

My reflex of doleling out ‘snippy letters’ has to do more with the long practice of responding to your Red Column brethren, who do not possess your candor and honesty.

Bert:
“Compared to the case made to go war in Iraq, apparently the mistakes made by CBS in the Killian memo scandal were the work of ‘a few bad apples’. To the dismay of those on the Right, the network and Dan Rather were exonerated of charges of partisan political skullduggery.”

I think someone might’ve said it here recently, but I’ll ask anyway: Do you think there is any chance at all that the Killian memo was orchestrated by Rove?

I think if we’re talking partisan political skullduggery the medal has got to go to the odious Bob Novak. But why haven’t we seen the cuffs slapped on him for Plamegate? I think that scandal makes “Rathergate” seem like tea and sandwiches with granny.

“the credible, unanswered questions surrounding the Bush administration’s payoff to Black Conservative pundit Armstrong Williams does have all the elements of a organized scheme to deceive the American people.”

It certainly does - and what I’d really like to know is: Who Else took/is taking Payola?

Jack-
You can’t have it both ways. They containment we started out with was the target of your criticism, and the policy Bush’s pre-emptive invasion wiped the slate of. Yet you talk as if the president’s policy was a continuation of Clinton’s policy. Take note that a regime change policy is not the same as a policy of pre-emptive military invasion. Changes of regime can be carried out without invasion and occupation of a country.

You cannot praise a man for bold shifts of policy, then claim the comforts of the precedent of one’s forebear on that same issue.

Bush cannot change that his authorization to wage war was based on WMDs and terrorists that didn’t show up in the necessary places to vindicate our course of actions. It’s terribly unfair, but that’s life.

Well, it looks like this story is changing as fast as the weather we’ve had lately!

In the last 72 hours, the Williams Payola Controversy has now sprouted 3 official investigations (FCC, GAO and an internal Education Dept. probe), and one incredulous passing of the buck.

Apparently, the move by FCC’s Micheal Powell is in part due to thousands of complaints that have come into the agency over the Williams’ matter. In addition, there are indications that the scope of the 3 investigations may extend to whether there was complicity by the broadcast company that carried Williams’ radio program.

Personally being a political observer of reasonable merit, I must commend WB editor AParker and his rag tag bunch of principled Conservatives, because we Lefties could not have accomplish this without you! :-}

However, Bush’s expression of ‘disapproval’ of the Education Dept.’s actions, is a load of ‘mule fritters’! This attempted influence of the Black community concerning No Child Left Behind, has the fingerprints of Karl Rove all over it! Furthermore, to blunt the expected charges of a ‘whitewash’ - if the Education Dept. were the sole official inquiry - the equally dutiful Powell was pressed into service, in a show of impartiality.

Which leads me to believe there are no more revelations to be uncovered. If there were, the NYTimes or The Post would have it by now. And, any investigation would encounter the same stonewalling tactics that have prolonged the Plame Spy investigation.

For the outgoing Education Secretary/Scapegoat Rod Paige, the Medal of Freedom is the least he’s entitled to for the crap he’s put up with!

So the hunt for WDM was called off? I never got through the stories about CBS, Brad and Jen, the women in Omaha who turned 100… :)

Thanks Bert.

This is more evidence that parties have to hold themselves accountable. Enemies can shout valid accusations all day, but they will never be treated as valid as a whispered accusation from an ally.

Hey,Y’all!

I’m just a poor old miserable Democrat down
here in Cracker-land, surrounded by carperbagger
republicans and scalawag turncoat “democrats”,
afraid to voice much of an opinion because of fear of being accused of anti-patriotism and
disloyalty to our Leader. That is why I enjoy
Bert and Adrienne and Stephen’s contributions
so much. I am certainly familiar with mule flops
and cow pies, too. And as LBJ said, I know the
difference between chicken salad and chicken crap
too, and our Iraq policy I believe belongs in
the latter category. Y’all be good, now, y’hear?