April 01, 2005
Poor Judgement
Well, it’s official. Again. While the Bush-appointed Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction unsurprisingly cleared President Bush of actively manipulating intelligence in the run up to the Iraq invasion, it makes clear that the White House expected intelligence officials to find evidence of Iraqi WMD whether it was there or not, “…it is hard to deny the conclusion that intelligence analysts worked in an environment that did not encourage skepticism about the conventional wisdom.”
The Bush administration's conclusion that Iraq had WMD and was a threat to the United States and its allies was a result of incestuous amplification within the intelligence community and the administration "in an environment that did not encourage skepticism." The Washington Post describes it as "a kind of echo chamber in which plausible hypotheses hardened into firm assertions of fact, eventually becoming immune to evidence."
As one example, the commission notes that, while Secretary of State Colin Powell was preparing his now infamous presentation to the UN, leading CIA analysts were making frantic phone calls to CIA director George Tenet telling him they had grave doubts about the credibility of one of their sources,
According to the division chief, Mr. Tenet replied with words to the effect of "yeah, yeah," and that he was "exhausted." The division chief said that when he listened to the speech the next day, he was surprised that the information from Curveball had been included.
That's important to note, because many of our allies at the UN were looking at the same intelligence. If you ever wondered why they didn't believe us, it's because the administration was spewing garbage that our own intelligence services didn't even believe.
Powell had his doubts, too. As he gave his UN presentation on Iraqi WMD, he knew it was probably bogus, "At one point during the rehearsal, Powell tossed several pages in the air. "I'm not reading this," he declared. "This is bullshit."
Hell, even President Bush didn't think the intelligence was solid. Drawing on interviews with Bush and others in the administration, Bob Woodward describes Tenet's "Slam Dunk" presentation in his book, "Plan of Attack",
"Nice try," Bush said. "I don't think this is quite - it's not something that Joe Public would understand or would gain a lot of confidence from."Card was also underwhelmed. The presentation was a flop.... Bush turned to Tenet. "I've been told all this intelligence about having WMD and this is the best we've got?"
From the end of one of the couches in the Oval Office, Tenet rose up, threw his arms in the air. "It's a slam dunk case!" the DCI said.
Bush pressed. "George, how confident are you?"
..."Don't worry, it's a slam dunk!"
...The president later recalled that McLaughlin's presentation "wouldn't have stood the test of time." But, said Bush, Tenet's reassurance - "That was very important."
"Needs a lot more work," Bush told Card and Rice. "Let's get some people who've actually put together a case for a jury." He wanted some lawyers, prosecutors if need be. They were going to have to go public with something.
One of the main recommendations made by the commission to keep future administrations from cherry-picking data to fit a pre-ordained conclusion is to encourage the dissemination of dissenting opinions - especially to Congressional oversight committees. I have an alternate solution: Americans should stop electing (and re-electing) leaders who consistently exhibit poor judgment.
Posted by American Pundit at April 1, 2005 03:31 AMAP,
I feel dirty even typing ‘Incestuous Amplification’. It also sounds like a Marilyn Manson song!
Funny, your ‘interpretation’ of the report sounded nothing like how it was being reported on the cable news networks today! It was all ‘…bad Intelligence Agencies, bad Intelligence Agencies…’, and ‘poor, poor, unwitting George Bush’. It makes me think of the American soldier who was convicted today of killing a severely wounded Insurgent captive, whose defense was that it was a ‘mercy killing’. I strongly suspect that would’ve been enough for an internal Pentagon investigation, and a majority of polled Americans.
The current housecleaning at the CIA by Porter Goss, is just an extension of the scapegoating of American Intelligence officials and payback for leaking evidence proving they were not at fault. In the current environment of forced transparency upon the Bush administration, I sense the same exploiters of the Schaivo circus will acquiesce to yet another whitewash of the Iraq Intelligence failure. Yet, that increases the number of sources where an increasing number of Americans are seeking out the truth.
Which begs the question: Is Colin Powell finally finished playing the ‘good, loyal soldier’?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 1, 2005 05:14 AMWhy do you think they gave them the Medal of Freedom?
Posted by: Aldous at April 1, 2005 05:30 AMWhat you don’t get is it wasn’t an “Iraq Intelligence Failure” but a gross failure by the intelligence community in total that has been going on for the past couple decades (USS Cole, WTC I, WTC II, Iranian Hostage Situation, Vietnam, Olympic murders, IRA, Terrorism around the world, Oklahoma City, Waco, etc, etc, etc). And it wasn’t just Bush that has been misled by the bad intelligence, we can go back to Carter and probably Nixon or Johnson before him. The Military Industrial Complex, which gave Johnson his power and has basically been running our government since is simply incapable of coordinating intelligence agencies and I don’t think we are finished finding out just how bad, and most likely corrupt, it is.
However, the attempt by partisans as yourselves to try and blame one party or person over another is what they count on to continue being completely inept yet retain their power. Playing partisan politics and the politics of hatred plays right into their hands. It’s a wonderful wedge issue that helps keep the american citizens at each other while the string get pulled by career politicians who are the only real power in this country. Bush has failed in fixing it, but so have several other presidents, both Republican and Democrat.
So, while I’m sure that the blame will still be placed on Bush and his administration, meaning the problem will continue well past this administration and hundreds if not thousands more americans die because of it along with continued terrorism and chaos around the world, at least you’ll be able to continue to try and spin every single failure on Bush in an order to regain the power you so desperately crave. All the while getting support and adulation from the very people that are hurt by the distraction.
Bravo! Keep up the good work! Whining about Bush every other day is going to help continue the farce that is ‘The Intelligence Community’.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 1, 2005 08:01 AMHaha! Rhinehold, if it wasn’t for Democrats, this intelligence failure would have been quietly swept under the rug.
And what you don’t get - perhaps because you didn’t read the article - is that Bush & Co. knew exactly how dicey the evidence was, and they didn’t care.
Bush called in the trial lawyers, for Christ’s sake, to make the case clearer than the truth for “Joe Public” - YOU in other words. And you bought it.
odd assumption, AP, since I didn’t care about the ‘intelligence’ since I was in support of dealing with Iraq when Clinton signed the law putting us on the path in 1998, and even before that.
The ‘WMD Intelligence Issue’ is entirely irrelevant and is simply another way for the ‘left’ to try and take down ‘the right’ by obsfucating the issues that were there long before 2002, which I detailed months ago when I wrote http://www.watchblog.com/thirdparty/archives/001765.html.
Maybe you should base your bashing and ridiculing of my opinion on what my opinion is, not what you THINK my opinion is.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 1, 2005 09:38 AMThe ‘WMD Intelligence Issue’ is entirely irrelevant
Wait a minute! You’re the guy who made a big deal out of the intelligence.
And back in 1998, Saddam actually did have WMD. Clinton was making the case to Congress for Operation Desert Fox where he bombed the crap out of all of Saddam’s WMD sites. We were all in support of dealing with Iraq then. Oh, wait - except for the Republicans in Congress who were yelling “Wag the dog!” Idiots.
Anyhow dude, all I know about your opinion is what you write. If you knew the Iraq WMD intelligence was bogus long before 2002, but didn’t care, you should have just said so rather than make up some convoluted wacky-attack on Democrats.
I thought Saddam had WMD at the time of the invasion. I know he had WMD before that time and the Duelfer report concluded that Saddam intended to reconstitute his WMD program after sanctions were lifted, and was maintaining the infrastructure and expertise. Unfortunately, it is relatively easy to make lots of forms of WMD if you have the money to pay for it and the will to do so. Saddam demonstrably had both. So …
Saddam was sort of a once and future WMD possessor. He didn’t have WMD at the precise time we attacked. But he had it before and he was maintaining the capacity to have it again. Given the man’s record, that is still enough.
And let’s talk about his record. Well, why bother repeating it. President Clinton thought he was dangerous enough. We had to keep troops on the ground in Saudi and planes in the sky 24 hours a day to keep him boxed in. Meanwhile the UN was busy opening the box.
Given the options on the table and the intelligence as it was, Bush made the correct decision.
If he had drilled down, he would have found more uncertainty. Some people say that it should have made him less likely to attack. I think he should have been more likely. In the case of uncertainty dealing with a guy like Saddam and his proven predications for aggression, the default option is a robust defense (i.e. probably military)
We have to work to improve our intelligence, but this is a Bush problem only because he is currently president, not for any particular failings of his own. I read an article a couple of days ago about how we need more people trained in languages and area studies, but that leftist professors at major universities object to the CIA recruiting and training at their universities, so we have to overcome some social as well as governmental problems.
It is a political problem with a small p. It should not be a partisan issue.
The Shrub administration lied. Ok. We get it. Now can you guys just let it drop already? This is the crap that is killing the Democratic party.
Posted by: Zeek at April 1, 2005 01:24 PMGood article.
Zeek:
“The Shrub administration lied.”
Yes, to take us into war — an impeachable offensive. And almost all the people who had anything to do with that fact, have now either been promoted, or were awarded the nations highest honor, the medal of freedom. It is disgusting.
“Ok. We get it. Now can you guys just let it drop already?”
I think that’s hard to do, because this report has brought it all back into sharp focus. Though they’ve hung it totally on Intelligence, it makes absolutely no sense at all. Anyone who takes a look at what has been coming out from that report has got to question whether they are simply letting Dubya and Co. get away with all of their lies.
And accordingly, they’ve announced that they will not be releasing the second half of the report — which had to do with what the administration did with all the intelligence once they received it.
In addition to that, we now know that we are currently no safer than we were after 9/11 — which means while we were spending all that money in the lie that was Iraq, what we should have been doing was entirely rebuilding our Intelligence so that we could effectively deal with Al Qaeda.
We’ve been so screwed, it is extremely hard to let it all go.
Zeek, ditto on Adrienne’s post. In any case, the report was commissioned by Bush, and as Jack pointed out, wacking Bush over it shouldn’t be a partisan issue.
the Duelfer report concluded that Saddam intended to reconstitute his WMD program after sanctions were lifted, and was maintaining the infrastructure and expertise.
The first half of that is right, but they found no “infrastructure”, and the expertise only goes away if you kill all the scientists.
As far as intentions go, I intend to make a bazillion dollars this year from my blog. I suspect I have as much chance of that as Saddam would have had rebuilding his WMD program with inspectors - backed by force - crawling all over Iraq and keeping tabs on the scientists.
Also, the reason for the 24 hour air patrols was to protect Shiites and Kurds in the northern and southern no-fly zones so they could organize against Saddam. Unfortunately, only the Kurds took advantage of it. It had little to do with “boxing in” after we effectively destroyed Saddam’s army.
Just a reminder: Democrats - and most American’s, according to polls - big problem was not going in as part of a UN operation. We understood the “You break it, you bought it” concept better than Bush and his advisers.
In any case, the big story here is that the administration knew the intelligence was bogus, and they didn’t care. The truth was not going to stop them, and misleading the people who elected them was the means to the end. President Bush had trial lawyers spinning poor WMD intelligence that even Powell was calling “bullshit”, for cryin out loud.
Unless your personal code of ethics and morals is very “flexible”, that should disturb you.
AP
Yeah, keep the sanctions going on Iraq, killing Iraqis for decades to come, what a brilliant idea!
Now, listen to what I’m saying and quit ‘assuming’.
1) Clinton did not ‘bomb the hell out of ALL of Saddam’s weapons sites’. I’m not sure what orafice you are trying to pull that out of…
2) I did not think the intelligence was bogus, I just said then as I said now that whether or not they had the WMD was irrelevant. The support of terrorism, the constant attempts to buy and side-step the UN, the human rights violations, etc. All of it detailed in my previous essay I posted in the middle column months ago. Clinton didn’t have the political ability to do that, not because of those ‘nasty republicans’ but because he attempted to sidestep the law, one he supported and signed, and has been properly punished for it.
Stop attempting to rewrite history.
Posted by: Rhinehold at April 1, 2005 09:28 PMRhinehold-
You’re saying:
I’m going to ask you to obey orders that will put your life, your limb, and possibly even your sanity in danger.
I’m not going to make damn sure I’m not putting you in that danger for no reason.
I’m going to justify this by saying we did this for America’s own good. We know what this good is better than you.
I know that may seem a cariacture of your argument, but to me, it seems an accurate depiction of what you and folks like you won’t confront: that at the center of your philosophy of this war is an ideology that is not only unapologetically elitist towards those who are its subjects overseas, but also here at home.
It is a dangerous elitism that can justify sending troops abroad, into harm’s way, without there being an actual threat to confront.
I have no problem with our Democratizing Iraq. We’re there. We stand to gain nothing from an occupation that ends in a government which convinces people that liberty is the luxury of the affluent, rather than than the source of it for the common man.
But saying that this is an acceptable rationalization for the war at this point in history is dangerously off-base. Democratization was supposed to be the bonus prize in a contest whose grand prize was the removal of a clear and present danger to our national security.
So what if it didn’t show up? Oh, but isn’t there a war on terrorism going on? Aren’t there threats we avoided dealing with, to deal with the supposedly greater threat of Iraq?
If so, then we are doubly screwed, for we are occupied with an interminable war which both directly harms Americans and our interests, and indirectly does so by tying up our military resources and preventing us from using our resources towards other ends.
Our hopes for the war in Iraq at this point are sadly irrelevant while the war continues. Promises unfulfilled will not protect Americans. It is as important to pick our battles wisely as it is important to choose to fight evil in the first place.
Unfortunately, many Republicans and independents have conflated standing against evil to standing shoulder to should with them on judgments as to who we should attack. Saddam Hussein deserved to be overthrown, but so do any number of other tyrants. The priority always has been, how we can best serve the interests of this country, not how we can indulge in heroic illusions about ourselves and our capabilities.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 1, 2005 10:13 PMClinton did not ‘bomb the hell out of ALL of Saddam’s weapons sites’.
Haha! Sometime I don’t know why I bother. I guess Hannity and O’Reilly don’t mention it at all: revisionist history by omission. Google Operation Desert Fox. And the CENTCOM CINC at the time, Gen. Zinni, has a good book that covers it, “Battle Ready”.
“POOR JUDGEMENT”
Beat that “dead horse” again. Nobody cares. Every time a new report comes out, you people keep screaming the same tripe. We are there and the American people support the troops and when a government and constitution are set up and the people in Iraq are free and happy, our reason for going there will be of no importance.
When the left is able to come up with ideas instead of bashing, then they will become relevant. Bashing the administration will not win you elections. But, you are not able to understand this because you are consumed with hatred. The real problem is that the leadership in the House and Senate is the father of your own beliefs. Insult and bash, keep it up for the sake of the Republican Party.
Blaine wrote:
Beat that “dead horse” again. Nobody cares. Every time a new report comes out, you people keep screaming the same tripe. We are there and the American people support the troops and when a government and constitution are set up and the people in Iraq are free and happy, our reason for going there will be of no importance.
When those from the Right start complaining about ‘Bush bashing’, you know for damn sure it’s because someone from the Left is pointing out credible evidence of the failures of this administration.
And Blaine, do not try to hijack Americans’ support for the troops (and that includes everyone of us in the WB Blue Column) as some obvious approval of Bush’s handling of Iraq, when every current poll says otherwise!
The only ‘dead horses’ being beaten here, are those of you on the Right continuing to try and scapegoat the Left, in an effort to distract from the incompetence of this administration.
You can smugly say ‘nobody cares’, because your enablers in the media will spin this report Karl Rove’s way, just like they’ve ignored the 26 prisoners who’ve died in U.S. custody (the Pentagon’s count), the 9 Billion in aid that has disappeared from Iraq, and the compelling evidence of ‘extraordinary rendition’.
The American people are not reacting to our supposed all-consuming hatred for George Bush, they’re opening their eyes to the irrefutable truths that are somehow making their way to them.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 2, 2005 04:38 PMAdrienne:
an impeachable offensive. And almost all the people who had anything to do with that fact, have now either been promoted, or were awarded the nations highest honor, the medal of freedom.
Well, no matter how much the DFL whines, Bush will not be impeached. It is pointless to try to push the issue. And while I agree it is disgusting that undeserving people are tarnishing the medal of freedom, there is little you can actually do about it. Again, it is pointless to try to push the issue.
In addition to that, we now know that we are currently no safer than we were after 9/11 — which means while we were spending all that money in the lie that was Iraq, what we should have been doing was entirely rebuilding our Intelligence so that we could effectively deal with Al Qaeda.
Again, it sucks, but pissing and moaning isn’t really helping. As it is, evacuating our troops from Iraq is not exactly an option, and rebuilding our Intelligence can just step in line along with Social Security, Medicare, public education, and a score of other things I can’t think of at the moment.
We’ve been so screwed, it is extremely hard to let it all go.
That’s just the thing, the inability to let it go is what keeps Democrats from focusing on the present. If you can’t win elections, the truth no longer matters. Because regardless of what the truth is, you’re not in power to do jack.
@Blaine:
You say that, “Bashing the administration will not win you elections.”
Huh, seems to be working for the Republicans.
Posted by: Zeek at April 2, 2005 04:46 PMZeek:
“That’s just the thing, the inability to let it go is what keeps Democrats from focusing on the present.”
But the present state of things is now, and will be for a really long time to come, a result of all of these failures. Militarily, Homeland Security-wise, Economically, Diplomatically, etc.
And I honestly feel that if the Dems act like all their lies and machinations about taking us into this quagmire mean absolutely nothing, they’ll come off like passive, weakminded fools.
And that’s no way to win votes either, y’know?
“If you can’t win elections, the truth no longer matters.”
I know what you’re saying, but I still think the truth always matters. These Neocons can layer lie upon lie, and try to spin everything like a top, but sooner or later, the truth is going to bite everybody in the ass. I think a lot of the true Republicans are waking up to many of the facts they’ve been avoiding for a long time (you know, the same ones we’ve been screaming about for a dogs age! :^)
In fact, judging by that recent approval rating Bert just put up (btw, great reply Bert!) the truth seems to be finally dawning on many American’s — even those who voted for a 2nd Bush term.
“Because regardless of what the truth is, you’re not in power to do jack.”
I believe the awful truth just may get the neocon’s out of the White House — and that is what is really most important at this point. The way I see it, these people are so horrendously bad for the country in every single way that people are going to realize that they simply CANNOT remain in power. Even if John McCain is voted into office in 2008, it would be a relief to me (and as a true dyed-in-the-wool liberal, for me that’s REALLY saying something!). I swear, though I wouldn’t be ecstatic about it, I’d take him over these neocon nutjobs any day.
Posted by: Adrienne at April 3, 2005 01:35 AM“I have an alternate solution: Americans should stop electing (and re-electing) leaders who consistently exhibit poor judgment.” American Pundit
Now all you need is an electable canidate.
Question for Bush defenders: Can we all agree on a firm date when Bush becomes responsible for his own mistakes and the mistakes of his subordinates?
Just kidding. I know the answer. Never.
Posted by: Woody Mena at April 3, 2005 09:39 AMBlaine-
The very nature of the denials that come from people like you makes this a very lively nag to beat. You are saying our president should be free to make first-order strategical errors on evidence he knew was bad, because perhaps, if we’re lucky, if we we stick with this to the bitter end, we might leave a functional Democracy in the place of a savage dictatorship.
In short, you justify his dishonesty, his breaking our word to us, on the promise things might get better. It seems you have no problem with your president precipitating serious crises, just so long as your president promises to make things better.
We don’t have to come up with an idea in response to this. We already have a pretty damn good idea of what should be done. If you want full public support for a war, there should be full transparency on the evidence for our going to war. America should not be taken to war by enforced ignorance, and politically motivated case-building. We should be taken to war to face an honest to God threat, with honest to God evidence backing it as far as humanly possible.
Our government does not have the power to take this nation to war arbitrarily. It should not be given this power overtly, nor should it gain it by trickery and dishonesty.
You say, that just because things have improved in this war, we should forgive Bush for taking us to war the way he did. But the way he took us to war divided us, reduced our faith in the institutions set up to protect us, strained our military resources, is denying us choices in how we deploy troops in the war on terror, and alienated us from the rest of the world.
We’re not bashing Bush, we are criticizing him, and with cause. We are not consumed by hatred, but instead by frustration. Bush has screwed up things seriously, and instead of admitting it, your people are putting the blame on us for not being the leaders you say we should be. Problem is, the people of the Republican Party are not being the leaders they should be, and the rest of us Americans are less thrilled than ever under that political domination.
Before it was a matter of the policies we preferred. Now, it’s a matter of life and death, and Bush’s screwups are no longer a laughing matter- over 1700 coalition soldiers, including 1536 American soldiers, are dead in this war. How many more will die, if Bush’s personnel policy leaves us with a broken volunteer army, and our enemies take advantage of our weakness?
Bush may end up loosing us the war on terror, so he could glorify himself by fighting the war on Saddam. And though we may do good for the Iraqis in the moment, the consequences of this war could undo a great deal more good, and bring evil on our nation and its people. There’s more at stake here than the self-esteem of the Republican party
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 3, 2005 01:10 PMAll I know is, if I were President, I would have invaded Afghanistan as soon as the military was ready without hesitation. And I would have demanded evidence from American intelligence that would underwrite for history the soundness of invading Iraq before doing do so. A President who can’t ask the tough questions and process the answers to insure he acts responsibly, never should have been.
Posted by: David R. Remer at April 3, 2005 04:04 PMAdrienne:
they’ll come off like passive, weakminded fools.
And that’s no way to win votes either, y’know?
Huh, seemed to work for Shrub. But in all seriousness, that perception will only happen if the Democrats are passive and weakminded. What I’m suggesting is not an abandonment of political aggression, it’s being aggressive on different issues. I doubt the Dems would come off as passive if they were constantly hammering Shrub about how the deficit is getting out of hand and he’s doing nothing to stop it
These Neocons can layer lie upon lie, and try to spin everything like a top, but sooner or later, the truth is going to bite everybody in the ass.
“Sooner or later” is a long enough time span for Republicans to win several elections, and for the lie in question to have lost significance. So, again, once the truth becomes apparent to everyone the Dems are whining while everyone else has lost interest and moved on.
the truth seems to be finally dawning on many American’s
Not that it really matters now that the election has been lost…
I believe the awful truth just may get the neocon’s out of the White House — and that is what is really most important at this point. The way I see it, these people are so horrendously bad for the country in every single way that people are going to realize that they simply CANNOT remain in power.
You should know by now just how easy it is to hide the awful truth and convince people that it’s a lie. When you have a propaganda machine with Karl Rove at the helm, you can fool a lot of people for a very long time. (Point in case being people who still think Iraq has WMDs). Somehow, and I hope I’m wrong, I have the feeling that Dems are going to be holding the stink-bomb when it goes off. We’ll see…
Posted by: Zeek at April 3, 2005 07:03 PMYou get the Leaders you deserve. The Republicans are led by Bush because they like to be led by Bush. The Right support Illegal Wars, Murder and Torture.
Posted by: Aldous at April 3, 2005 08:00 PMWoody asked, “Can we all agree on a firm date when Bush becomes responsible for his own mistakes and the mistakes of his subordinates?
I will answer that question, “after January of 2009, when He is building his library and writing his memoirs”.
Stephen:
The President went to war with the approval of the congress. You will say, “He lied to them”. I will say, “They had access to the same sensitive material as the President”. They still gave him a go ahead.
I’m having a hard time understanding how we could run out of troops. Or as you say, “leaves us with a broken volunteer army”. I have been hearing the left tell us, for the past year, we are going back to the draft. Kerry ran on the fact that the US would impose the draft again. If that is true, we don’t need to worry about a shortage of troops. If it is not true, then it was just another scare tactic.
I believe Saddam was a threat and should have been taken out. I disagreed when Bush senior did not go into Iraq after him. He was a threat to us and to his neighbors, especially Israel. By the way, I also support Israel. It has nothing to do with the self-esteem of the Republican Party; it has to do with doing what is right.
I stated earlier, that the continued whining by the left would never win you an election. Some of the Democrats on this post have alluded to the same thought. I agree with Zeek’s “stink bomb”.
Would you support a complete success for President Bush in the Middle East even if it meant his popularity would skyrocket? Or would you rather wish for failure, to give the Democrats the edge in the next election? Now that’s a tough question; let’s see if you are an optimist or a pessimist.
Posted by: Blaine at April 4, 2005 02:27 AMBlaine:
Define Success in the Middle East? Republicans are very good at taking credit for the good and none for the bad. I am still waiting for the influx of Republicans into the Armed Forces to volunteer to Spread Freedom. Unfortunately, the Right is only willing to send someone else to die. The best the Repugs can do is tie a ribbon on their SUV and screech UnPatriotic at those who disagree with their moral myopia
Posted by: Aldous at April 4, 2005 03:56 AMWhile Dem.’s are busy bashing President Bush, Rep.’s are busy working on 2006 and 2008.
Nov. 2004 is history, Bush won. I understand that the left don’t like it, but what will be gained by spending the next 3 years complaining about it? He won’t be running again.
For once I must agree with Zeek, Democrats need to look at 06-08 and issues.
The wishfull thinking that Rep.’s will run McCain in 08, is just that.
If he were to run he would have to have a “D” or “I” behind his name. He’s just another “R” in the Senate and he’s smarter than Jeffords, he won’t switch partys.
Whatever happened to “jumping” Jim Jeffords?
Oh ..thats right, he’s sitting in the corner with a dunce cap on.
If I were a Dem. I would be thinking about Byrd’s seat, I dought he will be running again.
Whatever, a few more years of this and the “two party system” will be R’s and L’s.
Posted by: Beagle at April 4, 2005 09:12 AM
I doubt (not “dought”) that the Democrats will ever learn. I can’t recall a single modern day president that was Democrat and not from the South. It seems that the only time the Democrats win presidential elections is when they have a conservative candidate…
Posted by: Zeek at April 4, 2005 05:02 PMWhile Dem.’s are busy bashing President Bush, Rep.’s are busy working on 2006 and 2008.
Nov. 2004 is history, Bush won. I understand that the left don’t like it, but what will be gained by spending the next 3 years complaining about it? He won’t be running again.
Beagle,
Even with the Democrats 30 seats down, I’ve already predicted on my blog that we’ll take back the House in 2006. Why? Because, Bush and the Republicans have already given us plenty to run on!
But, I’d sure like to get your explanation as to Bush’s abysmal approval ratings currently? Will you argue that all of the ‘complaining’ and ‘Bush bashing’ of the Dems, is actually having it’s toll? If not, what is?
The RNC’s Ken Mehlman recently stated the party’s number one priority in 2006 is getting Rick Santorum re-elected? And, you think the Dems should be worried about Robert Byrd? Furthermore, am I the only one who thinks Bill Frist’s Presidential aspirations are toast? Speaking of burnt, how long will the Republicans allow Tom DeLay to singe the Party?
I doubt (not “dought”) that the Democrats will ever learn. I can’t recall a single modern day president that was Democrat and not from the South. It seems that the only time the Democrats win presidential elections is when they have a conservative candidate…
Such hubris expressed here, can only be symptomatic of a party in total denial. Oblivious to the fact, that as the party in power and control, your deceitful arrogance is becoming more transparent by the day.
Before Washington plunged into the Iraq war, West Virginia’s Sen. Robert C. Byrd warned repeatedly that the White House had presented no clear evidence that the little country had any weapons of mass destruction — supposedly the reason for the invasion. But most of Congress ignored Byrd and approved the needless war.
Subsequent events have shown that Byrd was right all along — and this fact was underscored last week when a commission appointed by President Bush himself released a 618-page report that minced few words.
“On the brink of war, and in front of the whole world, the U.S. government asserted that Saddam Hussein had reconstituted his nuclear weapons program, had biological weapons and mobile biological weapon production facilities…. And not one bit of it could be confirmed when the war was over,” the report said.
The commission told the president: “The daily intelligence briefings given to you before the Iraq war were flawed.”
In other words, Byrd was correct, right from the start. He was correct in March 2003 when he asked:
“What is happening to this country? When did we become a nation which ignores and berates our friends? When did we decide to risk undermining international order by adopting a radical and doctrinaire approach to using our awesome military might? How can we abandon diplomacy when the turmoil in the world cries out for diplomacy?”
And Byrd was right when he warned: “I have watched the events of recent months with a heavy, heavy heart. No more is the image of America one of a strong, yet benevolent peacekeeper. The image of America has changed. Around the globe, our friends mistrust us, our word is disputed, our intentions are questioned.”
America should have paid closer attention to questions Byrd began asking in the fall of 2002. They still cry out for answers today.
Posted by: Aldous at April 5, 2005 04:37 AMBlaine-
You frame the question very restrictively, as if optimism and pessimism about the war in the general public were all that matter in winning it. You have your head in the clouds if you don’t think logistics enters into it.
I don’t care about Bush’s reputation half so much as you do. It hasn’t been my primary concern. My concern has been winning the War on Terrorism, and now we’re stuck in it, the War in Iraq. Unfortunately, people like you equate your political welfare with the welfare of this country. The GOP is not an infallible institution when it comes to defending this country. It also is not an exclusive guarantor of its safety. Democrats have been long willing to come to their country’s defense.
We speak pessimistic thoughts to encourage change for the better, to urge the Republicans to take care of the nuts and bolts of defending the country and fighting our war in Iraq and beyond, and not merely let the temptations of patriotic hubris blind them to the realities, human and otherwise, of waging this war. We can’t win this war if we blind ourselves to the problems that arise. The place for optimism is in believing the worst can be overcome. It is not in believing the worst cannot happen.
You call it whining. What right do you have to call our complaints whining? Your people are the ones whining.
You whine that you can’t get unquestioning support for a war whose justifications have been discredited. Boo-hoo.
You whine that we Democrats don’t leave you alone on the B.S. you fed us to get us on your side in the vote for war, or that we expect you to get rid of your insane wartime tax cuts as the costs of this war accumulate, and the deficit skyrockets. Boo-hoo.
You whine that a president who steeped his campaign in the hatred and discrediting of Democrats doesn’t get more support or respect for his “mandate” from the Democrats he spent year beating up on. Boo-hoo.
You whine about the trauma your president’s cabinet members are experiencing getting asked tough questions and having political pressure applied when our soldiers are putting their lives and sanity on the line for real in another country. Boo-hoo.
It’s disgraceful that in a time where the threat to America is so real, it is the politicians and the pundits you shield from harm first, and not the rest of America. Why is it that every time we demand serious and effective action from our government, your response is to criticize us for being negative? Why can’t the answer ever be “let’s both make sure this gets done right?”
My fear is that by the time it is no longer politically inconvenient for your side to face its mistakes, it will be too late to correct the consequences. The Republican party will not long remain in power if keeps screwing things up and waiting six months to admit the mistake and do anything about it.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 5, 2005 10:53 AMDemocrats need to just “stay the course”, its been working fine and they might just sweep congress in 2006.
In time everyone will embrace the platform and socialism, no place to go but up from here.
Posted by: Beagle at April 5, 2005 02:46 PMBeagle-
Why do we need to be accepting political advice from our adversaries? The implicit suggestion in telling us to stop being so much the activists, is that we should simply accept the political shift and not try to fight it anymore.
Trouble is, we already tried that, and our current compromised situation is a direct result. You think we haven’t gone far enough. Bull. We need to go in a new direction, neither New Deal nor Contract with America. The Republicans are stuck in the world of 1994. The Democrats don’t need to be stuck in this, the time of the Republican’s greatest power.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 5, 2005 06:13 PMBert, Democrats had “plenty to run on” in the ‘04 election. So wtf happened then huh? But for some reason ‘06 will be different? Come on… Just admit it, the Dems are soft.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 12:08 AMSuccess in the Middle East is the establishment of some form of democracy. Anything is better than the regime that was responsible for killing and raping hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.
I don’t think the Republicans have anything to whine about. They are in control. Why shouldn’t they be optimistic? The Democrats have lost touch with America. Why shouldn’t they be pessimistic?
To the terrorists, Iraq is the area of jihad. This means every terrorist who wants to kill an American will travel to this area. Eventually, they will be destroyed and the influx of terrorist will stop. The Iraqi people understand who is responsible for the terrorist attacks on their own people and as troops are trained, they will begin to protect themselves.
If the Republicans are stuck in the world of 1994, the Democrats are living on the laurels of the New Deal. The reason Democrats are so dead set against any reform to SS is because SS is the only thing they ever did that was successful. Successful in it’s day, but archaic today.
Posted by: Blaine at April 6, 2005 09:01 AMIts unfortunate how so many people are willing to dismiss intelligence failures as simple mistakes. In case everyone has forgotten more than 1500 US service members are dead and thousands have been maimed. By the way, why isn’t anyone talking about Cheney and “Scooter” visiting low level analysts prior to the discovery of the golden information that led us into this nightmare.
Posted by: muppet at April 6, 2005 10:08 AMStephen,
“Why do we need to be accepting political advice from our adversaries? “
When did someone that voted Dem. for many years become an “adversary” for pointing out that there are issue/platform reasons that many left the Dem. party?
Most here know that in recent history, every Dem. President has come from southern states, how well does “anti-gun” issues sell in the southern/red states? Hell, that won’t even sell in Vermont!
Thats only one issue that has been enbraced by the Dem. party in the past 10-20 yrs., what other issues have done nothing but cost votes?
My opinions are often misspelled( I may be dislexic, everything looks wrong), but they are honest and if you understand the point its likely close enough.
Posted by: Beagle at April 6, 2005 04:15 PMZeek wrote:
Bert, Democrats had “plenty to run on” in the ‘04 election. So wtf happened then huh? But for some reason ‘06 will be different? Come on… Just admit it, the Dems are soft.
There are some angry wheat farmers in North Dakota and some pissed off tobacco farmers in Louisiana who voted for Bush, now only 6 months after they voted for him. They feel betrayed and lied to, hearing nothing from him during the campaign about cuts in farm subsidies. And, once the effects of the other drastic budget cuts are felt, many more Bush voters will realized they’ve been hoodwinked.
I guess, what you consider ‘soft’ Zeek, was the Democrats warning this was going to happen (or as you Republicans call it ‘Bush bashing’). Therefore, what you consider ‘strong’ then, was the GOP just blatantly lying to the American voters?
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 6, 2005 04:54 PM“I guess, what you consider ‘soft’ Zeek, was the Democrats warning this was going to happen (or as you Republicans call it ‘Bush bashing’).”
No, what I consider soft is the Democrats unwillingness to run smear-campaigns. I don’t know why you call me a Republican, I doubt anyone here has bashed Shrub more than myself. But at the same time I realize he was smart enough politically to get himself 2 presidential elections.
“And, once the effects of the other drastic budget cuts are felt, many more Bush voters will realized they’ve been hoodwinked.”
Unless Shrub passes an ammendment saying he can run a third term, this doesn’t really matter does it? Not much anyone can do now to kick him out of office.
“Therefore, what you consider ‘strong’ then, was the GOP just blatantly lying to the American voters?”
I don’t like to generalize and say that “strong” means lying to people. However, the “strong” certainly don’t have an aversion to misleading and dishonest methods of winning.
Posted by: Zeek at April 6, 2005 05:19 PMSorry, to have pigeonholed you Zeek, but when anyone challenges me here, you immediately go into the Red Column.
No, what I consider soft is the Democrats unwillingness to run smear-campaigns.
Very sobering point there! Yes, the last two elections have taught the Dems it’s not enough to have the truth on your side. But, we would be really clumsy and not nasty enough to go USANext. But, here’s a question. Do you consider the MoveOn.org Tom DeLay TV ad smear?
Unless Shrub passes an ammendment saying he can run a third term, this doesn’t really matter does it? Not much anyone can do now to kick him out of office.
What I’m talking about is bigger than Bush payback! It’s a reckoning long overdue for the acquiescence of the Republican Party and the arrogant power grab of Christian Conservatives, that will have repercussions far into the future.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 6, 2005 05:58 PMBlaine-
Success in the Middle East is the establishment of some form of democracy. Anything is better than the regime that was responsible for killing and raping hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens.
No, anything is not better. If this country becomes a failed state, the establishment of a Democracy will be a wasted effort, and thing will get worse that they were under Saddam, not just from the Iraqi perspective, but from ours as well. Al-Qaeda is looking for failed states to exploit, and Iraq would be an all too conveniently placed target for exploitation. Correction: has proved a convenient target for exploitation. If our aim is truly to defeat terrorism, there are a number of outcomes that truly would be unacceptable in the absence of Saddam.
I don?t think the Republicans have anything to whine about. They are in control. Why shouldn?t they be optimistic? The Democrats have lost touch with America. Why shouldn?t they be pessimistic?
I didn’t say the Republicans had anything to whine about. Instead, I gave examples of what should legitimately be called whining: obnoxious complaints made when somebody asks of someone else what’s expected of them. The conduct of this war is not only fair game for criticism, it is a matter for which the greatest scrutiny is necessary, as it is an act that involves the risk of life and limb of America’s sons and daughters. It is shameful that our leaders feel so put upon just for being asked to do the minimum of what is expected by those leading our country into war: a creditable reason for making war, competent policy in executing our war, and strategy that leads our way into victory. Bush has no right to disappoint this country on those requirements.
To the terrorists, Iraq is the area of jihad. This means every terrorist who wants to kill an American will travel to this area. Eventually, they will be destroyed and the influx of terrorist will stop.
How you can buy this is beyond me.
The reality is, our designs with this war were to crush a terrorist threat. That threat did not exist when we invaded. After we invaded, though, a lousy strategy for postwar occupation allowed terrorists to flood into the country and start a bloody insurrection that has seriously compromised the mission. If our mission was to defeat terrorism by invading Iraq, the outcome has been largely counterproductive.
The terrorists we face are not this stupid. Some of them will go to Iraq, and many will escape with their lives. Those that die will not necessarily be a discouragement to those who think dying in holy war gets them a “get out of purgatory free” card. Meanwhile, others will head over to our country, move through our still lax security, and do as they will.
Beagle-
I think it’s still a valid question, if you’re asking the same of the Democrats that many Republicans are. I think many of the points for which Democrats switch to the Republicans in the 70s and 80s have become largely out of fashion, and the Democrats have got pretty far towards the center already.
In the meantime, labor unions, veterans, consumers, investors, and many other groups have been without strong advocates, willing to fight for their rights against the powerful and the careless. We don’t need a second Republican Party. The last few years have been years where Democrats have shifted to the right, and it hasn’t gained us back anything. I think you’re misreading the political situation, and buying far too much into the Republican’s heavily biased picture of American politics.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 6, 2005 08:27 PMBert, Dems are gonna hafta do a lot better than one DeLay smear add…
“What I’m talking about is bigger than Bush payback! It’s a reckoning long overdue for the acquiescence of the Republican Party and the arrogant power grab of Christian Conservatives, that will have repercussions far into the future.”
Jeez Bert, you trying to organize some sort of revolution?
Posted by: Zeek at April 7, 2005 12:00 AMBert, Dems are gonna hafta do a lot better than one DeLay smear add…
Well, in stark comparison to the USANext attack ads against the AARP, I’ve heard no libelous charges connected to the DeLay ad, while the current revelations, I believe, seem to confirm his guilt.
Jeez Bert, you trying to organize some sort of revolution?
Actually Zeek, I am awaiting orders from my Commander, DNC Chair Howard Dean! But, speaking for the Left bloggers out there, we see the falling approvals of Bush and the Republicans as the first sign that accountability has finally caught up to them.
Posted by: Bert M. Caradine at April 7, 2005 12:31 AM
