Democrats & Liberals: Archives

Too early to tell. The problem is BushCo is buying time for Iraq to succeed.

Its like a gambler who is losing money. His solution is to keep playing in the hopes of a better hand.

The key here is that Bush might still do it. A lot is riding on so many factors though.

We will see.

Aldous:

The key here is that Bush might still do it. A lot is riding on so many factors though.

If it gets done, it won’t be by the hand of Bush. If it gets done, it will be by the persuasion of military leaders on the ground to change the strategic aim of this conflict to one more in kind to what NATO is doing in Afghanistan. Granted, the vast majority of NATO troops on the ground in Afghanistan are US troops, but the strategic direction in place is completely different from that in Iraq—and, frankly, working much better.

I am not confident that persuasion can or will happen. I am more confident that this conflict will continue on its current path for the next 3 1/2 years, and will cost the Republicans the election. We are not currently prepared for this type of conflict, and are not training new arrivals to fight it. The Iraqi troops-in-training are actually getting better, more to the point training than our own troops.

Bush’s tape recorded message Tues nite could have taken place in its entirety at anytime in the last year. The 9/11 card he continually chooses to play is now being trumped by the facts. In sheepshead, we call that a “no-tricker.”

Bert, you wrote a great commentary. I really liked the way you used links. Very kool.

There is no way Bush will succeed in ‘winning’ in Iraq. They are getting closer and closer to civil war as it is and I’m sure even his limited IQ can see than. Although it’s probably the fantasy land that he lives in that helps him perpetuate the myth of ‘winning’.

I actually beleive that he expects to draw this war out, or to actually prevent losing it, long enough to slough it off on the next president which will surely not be a republican. That way the right can blame the next office holder for losing the war.

That’s just like his dad did with the deficit when he was in office and W expects to do with this horrendous deficit he stuck us with. That way the democrats get the blame for raising taxes so they can pull the country back from the desaster that awaits our children.

And when we do eventually leave, there will be civil war. There is no way to get around it. You would have to kill every Terrorist/Insurgent/Freedom fighter that is in Iraq and any that propose to enter Iraq in the future to avoid it.

Yea, but we all feel safer now don’t we?

It seems to me that Bush is doing everything he can to push the bulk of Americans away from him. Maybe he just believes that since he won the election, the American people will grumble about things but when push comes to shove, they will land on his side. I’m not so sure he’d be wrong about that.

I’ve batted around the loss in November a thousand different ways, and I can’t seem to find any logic that supports the Bush victory. I’m at the point now where I don’t think logic has any true play in American politics. Facts are immediately seen as suspect.

The Downing Street memos are to Bush as the blue dress was to Clinton. The people opposed to the administration rant and rave about proof-positive of wrong doing, and the supporters of the administration just look past it as just a political ploy - or at least something done solely for political gain.

To me, you have a man lying about getting a blowjob (a fairly universal thing) and a man lying to start his own war. It would seem that any rational person could never see those two things as equal wrongs. But, Rational and Politics don’t work together very often, so … what can we do to make things happen in our favor?

I think we need to let Bush hang himself… he seems quite capable of doing that (maybe his best talent.) We DEMS need to start setting ourselves up as truly different from the REPS. We must start responding to situations with solutions, not accusations. We need clean our own shed before we try and condemn others. (The Delay vs Almost Every Other Representative in the illegal travel expenses scandal.) If DEMS break trust with us, then we need to be the first to hang them out to dry. Sorry, but you can’t come in 2 years after a trip and say ‘Oh my, I forgot to file this trip properly.’

If we start acting true to our beliefs and holding DEM representative accountable to them, then maybe, just maybe, the rest of America might just see us as the better alternative.

???

“To me, you have a man lying about getting a blowjob (a fairly universal thing) and a man lying to start his own war.”

Yeah, clinton never lied about war our military or anything else like that. Dumb forgetful bushies.

SOMALIA, 1993: Clinton pledged never to deploy American troops overseas unless U.S. strategic interests were threatened and there was a clear military goal with a firm exit strategy.

BOSNIA, 1995: Clinton said he would deploy troops to Bosnia for only 18 months, and then they would come home.

BOSNIA, 1998: The Clinton administration confirmed plans to maintain thousands of troops on an open-ended peacekeeping mission in Bosnia-Herzegovina with no exit strategy.`The policy is to remain there. It’s open-ended.’

So there bushies, its ok if we don’t hold our party accountable for doing the exact same thing.

“If Bush had anything of substance to say to the American people - like the truth, he would’ve delivered this address from the Oval Office”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/bosnia/dec95/nbos032.htm

Guess thats why paris was used huh.

Come on people. Its not left vs. right, quit making it that way.

I’m surprised Rove didn’t bug his own office again like he did in 1986. That would be more fresh than bringing up 9/11 again. I guess that there’s still time. I mean, he ought to try it once more before he (I mean Bush) makes bugging legal.

Also, Randi Rhodes gave me an idea about why Karl Rove acts the way that he does. He apparently has some physical deficiency, and he received an offer in his e-mail about a way to cure this deficiency. Desperate to cure this deficiency, he sent away for the cure, only to learn that it was simply a spam. Outraged by being taken in by this spam, he has devoted his life to doing and saying shocking things like giving Gore Bush’s debate notes the day of their debate. You see, Karl Rove is the ultimate spammer, and the Fox News Channel doesn’t have a spam filter. Any time you hear about something like someone giving away cigarrettes for votes, it’s actually Karl Rove acting out his frustrations with spammers. If they would just give him a product which would solve his deficiency, maybe we could end this problem once and for all.

—-
So there bushies, its ok if we don’t hold our party accountable for doing the exact same thing.
—-
OK - WMD, Iraq=9/11 connection: Those are lies. Lies designed to start a war.

Bosnia, Solamlia - we knew the reasons for going in. Those reasons were basically backed up by what was found after the military was there. There was on going genocide - Bosnia was a humanitarian disaster. Neither were even close to the scale of Afg. + Iraq.

Please - only in your mind can these be compared with Iraq.

Kctim,

You’re absolutely right. It’s time for all of us, left and right, to stop looking at war as some sort of partisan political beast. It isn’t. It’s real horror, and real people die. Perhaps we should start thinking about other options before we commit our troops into harm’s way (and so often, as we have seen for the past two administrations, with little positive result). I think it’s long past time that we, as Americans, look at such situatios with an unbiased and nonpartisan eye. Its not ok when Bush does it, and its not ok when Clinton does it (Clinton may get slightly higher marks, simply because he was trying to intervene in what was at least wholesale slaughter and possibly genocide, but his plans were certainly flawed and had little chance of real success). I’m not so surprised or pissed off that Iraq is taking longer than “expected” (although everyone really knew it wouldn’t be the cakewalk that was predicted, just as the civil war in the remnants of Yugoslavia didn’t turn out to be), because we knew it would be a shitshow. I’m pissed that the justification for it continually changes (something not readily attributable to Clinton) and never really makes sense.

Sorry about all those damn italics. Only the “slightly” that begins the italics was meant to be that way.

It appears it has become necessary to install parental controls on this site given the frequent reference to blowjobs, taking of dumps, etc.

kctim:

Just out of curiousity, how many GIs died during all those Clinton Operations? How much money did it cost?

I also seem to recall every single REP demanding an exit strategy from Clinton before they would approve Bosnia. You never commit US troops without a strategic plan and a pre-determined exit.

Right?

tony,

Good point. In 1999, George W. Bush criticized President Clinton for not setting a timetable for exiting Kosovo, and yet he refuses to apply the same standard to his war.

George W. Bush, 4/9/99:

“Victory means exit strategy, and it’s important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

And on the specific need for a timetable, here’s what Bush said then and what he says now:

George W. Bush, 6/5/99

“I think it’s also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long they will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

VERSUS

George W. Bush, 6/24/05:

“It doesn’t make any sense to have a timetable. You know, if you give a timetable, you’re - you’re conceding too much to the enemy.”

(from Think Progress)

Lawnboy

Have you noticed a drastic slide in Bush’s ability to make coherent sentences? I’ve never considered Bush Jr. an intellectual, but he’s starting to sound like he might be needing to wear a helmet. (The Pretzels! The Pretzels!)

The Downing Street Memos are to Bush as what the blue dress was to Clinton? Wrong. I saw two references to the Downing Street Memos here…both were confidant that their veracity (the memos) were unquestionable.

Allow me to copy what I wrote under another subject.

I saw something like this a while back, but it’s good to see Tony Blair repeat it.

(AP) British Prime Minister Tony Blair said Wednesday that the “Downing Street memos” paint a distorted picture and insisted that the Iraq war was not predetermined by the United States.

“People say the decision was already taken. The decision was not already taken,” he said in an interview with The Associated Press. Blair added that he was “a bit astonished” at the intensive coverage the leaked memos, which suggested British officials had doubts about the case for war, have received in the United States.

According to the leaked minutes of a July 23, 2002, meeting between Blair and top government officials at his Downing Street office, Sir Richard Dearlove, then chief of Britain’s intelligence service, said the White House viewed military action against Saddam Hussein as inevitable following the Sept. 11 attacks.
In the interview, Blair said raising such concerns was a natural part of any examination of the cause for war.

“The trouble with having a political discussion on the basis of things that are leaked is that they are always taken right out of context. Everything else is omitted from the discussion and you end up focusing on a specific document.”

In other words, boys and girls, the flap surrounding the “Blair Street Memos” is just that. Flap…and taken out of context. So the next time someone mentions them (the memos) as a “smoking gun”, just write it off to ignorance.

You know, it’s awfully strange that if Tony Blair has a major problem with the Blair Street Memos…maybe we should too. Or is it that certain people want to keep beating the drum over and over until everyone erroniously takes them as the absolute fact…which, according to Tony Blair…they are not.

LibertyMan
“look at such situatios with an unbiased and nonpartisan eye”

Thats all it would take sir. Instead BOTH sides make excuses and continue the division of the people.

Aldous
Come on. 1, 3, 25, 100 or 1700 GI’s dying for another country besides America is wrong.
Same with tax dollars.

tony
“Right?”

Absolutley friend and it would have helped us out to have had a better one for both.

We are always going over the lies Bush used to start the war. What does that change. I guess I’m a little confused, does anyone want us to pull out. I see only a select few Democratic leaders pushing for that. What would you have us do now, forget what happened before.

I’ve got an idea. How about if we pull out of Iraq and then enact the security provisions that Kerry called for during the debates? That way, we won’t lose soldiers as frequently, they’ll be when they’re actually needed, and we’ll still be safer than we are today. It’s bad enough that we can’t call Bush a liar, but are we at least allowed to acknowledge that things that he says are not true?

—-
We are always going over the lies Bush used to start the war. What does that change. I guess I’m a little confused, does anyone want us to pull out. I see only a select few Democratic leaders pushing for that. What would you have us do now, forget what happened before.
—-
OK - so do REPS insist on calling any sort of intentional exit from Iraq an act of cowardess? “Pull out” or “retreat”???

1 - We will continue to go over the lies Bush has told until he either owns up to them, or the REP party pays for it’s support of those lies. Bush can not run again - but his faithful followers will.

2 - Why is it considered un-Patriotic to soundly question the reasons for war? It is our duty to our military to make absolutely sure that they a risking their lives for a just cause. We also continue to bring up the lies of this war to undermine it’s support. If someone lied to start a war, then the only one who should to die for that war are the ones who lied. Letting our soldiers die for lies is sad… it’s sick.

3 - I’m not sure what you mean ‘forget what happened before.’ Surely you can’t be harping on 9/11…?

jimmie

I would love to see your ‘facts’ on the Oct. 2002 resolution… please. The Congress stated support for military means as a last resort should Saddam fail to give up his WMDs.

Bush did not wait to use the military as a last resort (he hardly waited to see what any other options might’ve been.)

Saddam did not have WMDs

As far as the rationale for the creation and support for the enemies we now face - because it seemed like a good idea at the time means it can never be seen as a horrible mistake…??? The reason we bring up the past (Saddam, Bin Laden, Taliban, fighting our own weapons) is to point our mistakes in the past with our dealings that area and the hope that somehow or another, our leaders might pause for a minute and consider that the actions they are taking now might been seen as even worse mistakes 20 years from now.

I hope you don’t perceive learning from past mistakes as weakness…???

jimmie

OK - again, the resolution for the use of force as a last resort. Bush had his mind made up before he even attempted to talk to the UN. (If you look over that period on time, you will notice that the resolution past by Congress was more of a way to force Bush to go to the UN, not as an OK for military action. The President does not need Congress’ approval for the use of military force.)

Look at who provided the intelligence assesment of Iraq to Congress.

Look at who made the decision to go to war.

“If someone lied to start a war, then the only one who should to die for that war are the ones who lied. Letting our soldiers die for lies is sad… it’s sick.”

Hear hear! I totally agree.
But then of course, we would have had to contend with a president gore. Ugh, what a nightmare that would have been.
“Sorry for doing things to make you hate us al-kayda, its our own fault for making you crash those planes into our buildings but if you do it again we will have to tell the UN on you.”

How easy we choose to forget and how easy it is to make excuses.

I like what I’m reading, but can’t get by the misuse of the English language, the spelling errors, and so on. How can anyone take what you’re saying seriously, if you obviously are ignorant of perfecting the Mother Tongue? I know that perhaps when in a rage, you might mistype, but the real issue here is that we aren’t educated enough to know the difference between your and you’re, to, too and two. Sad. Really sad. While the content is important, the delivery shows Good Old American Laziness. Now that’s a bipartisan comment for whomever was looking for one.

—-
again why are facts backing up facts never enough for you to admit your wrong
—-
I would ask the same to you? Go read the resolution… The two things that were hoped for by Congress before any military action was taken was UN approval + international support with military action.

Neither happened. (I know you want to make the countries who did go with us into Iraq look like a multinational force, but it was sad excuse as a result of a sad attempt at diplomacy.)

I would also wonder why a Bush supporting conservative would be spending so much time getting so wound up on a ‘Democrats & Liberal’ blog…? You don’t expect to convert anyone here, do you?

You speak of FACTS AND QUOTES. Please show me a www site with complete disclosure and a reliable authentication of the facts presented. Please, facts… I have my facts, you have your facts…

My point about BUSH’s predisposition to go to war with Iraq prior to 9/11 - how many books do I have to point you to, published by people who have been far, far closer to Bush than we will ever be. They say he wanted to find a justification to go to war. Pretty mush everything that has come to light about the prewar conversation supports Bush’s predisposition to go to war. We each have to make up own on minds on what to believe. I’m afraid there will never be proof-positive one way or another.

KR,

Also they’re, their and there. Or hear and here. It gets very difficult to decipher the meaning when the words are all wrong.

Jackie

jimmie,

KR is right. Your utter lack of understanding of the English language makes your posts meaningless. He’s in the right spot. This is a place for intelligent, reasoned discourse. If you cannot handle the English language, then you’re the last person to tell someone to go back to school.

judgeing someone based on the way they type is no worse than judging someone based on their skin color…

No, because the lack of care you display in expressing yourself shows both a lack of knowledge and a lack of respect for yourself, the debate, and the other people here. Equating that with racism is absurd.

As annoying as I find bad grammar (or Kelsey Grammer, for that matter) to be, I do think we should keep this in perspective:

a) Our Founding Fathers could not agree on how to spell “Independence”;
b) nor could they agree on proper methods of capitalization;
c) and even William Shakespeare spelled his own name several different ways in his own will!

We’ve had at least two U.S. presidents who couldn’t properly pronounce the word “nuclear”. I think attacking poor ‘jimmie’ for his apparent lack of education in the English language may be out of place here. Besides, have you read his posts? I think there’s plenty to attack him on besides his GRAMMAR! ;-)

Jimmie:

Maybe congressmen (of both parties) voted the way they did because they were lied to?

It has been testified to the Cheney influenced how intelligence reports were written and data interpreted.

Of course those folks were probably liars, right?

“Your utter lack of understanding of the English language makes your posts meaningless”

To bad the left isn’t this forward when courting voters.
It’s not his typing that irks you guys, it’s because he doesn’t agree with your views.
You call for “intelligent, reasoned discourse” but yet you wish to censor those with oppossing views.

Kind of explains the “elitist” label now, doesn’t it.

jimmie
Keep up the posts, some of us enjoy seeing BOTH sides of an issue.

a) Our Founding Fathers could not agree on how to spell “Independence”; b) nor could they agree on proper methods of capitalization; c) and even William Shakespeare spelled his own name several different ways in his own will!

Besides, have you read his posts? I think there’s plenty to attack him on besides his GRAMMAR! ;-)

True, but it’s nearly impossible for me to find the “substance” when I have to dig so hard through the typing.

It’s not his typing that irks you guys, it’s because he doesn’t agree with your views.

Actually, it’s both. But thank you, kctim, for assuming you know what I think.

You call for “intelligent, reasoned discourse” but yet you wish to censor those with oppossing views.

BS. It’s not the view - it’s the means. Have we ever reacted this way to to Jack or to Eric Simonson or to Chi Chi or to…? No, then we address the content. With jimmie, it’s just not worth the effort to try to figure out what he’s trying to say.

It gets very difficult to decipher the meaning when the words are all wrong.

I for one want to hear ALL views, but like to understand them. That’s all I intended. I apologize if you took it as a slur on your education.

“Actually, it’s both. But thank you, kctim, for assuming you know what I think.”

Your welcome. But to be honest, most of the credit should be given to the lefts elitist attitude.
I’m just a dumb ole redneck whose voice doesn’t deserve to be heard.

jimmie
“Everybody wishes to attack the manner in which I stated my opinion when they should, instead, be attacking the content of what I have said.”

Come on, get it right! Sheesh.

OK - just posting this question again (directly for kctim and jimmie)

Why do you get so upset about what is posted to you here?

You are obviously not of the same mindset as the Blog name (Democrats & Liberals) suggests. I would venture to guess that not many posting here agree with your stances on past and current events.

We do not want to censor you or attack your views, but we do not see your perspective and I for one do not want to. It’s just the place I’m at right now. I hate Bush and everything he stands for. Make of that what you will, but you have no proof that the ‘facts’ you offer are any more or less valid than the facts that contradict you. I am suspect of your arguments, just as you are of mine. Have fun with the discussion, but don’t expect much to change.

I’m guessing that you are a contentious person who enjoys dissent, or I fail to see why you spend so much time on a blog that so obviously rejects your positions.

Relax and enjoy it - and please don’t ask me or others to ‘take this outside…’ It would not be worth the drive to Ohio to kick your ass, nor would it be in keeping with my liberal tree-hugging hippie outlook on life.

“Why do you get so upset about what is posted to you here?”

Actually, I don’t get upset about much of anything, especially on here. Except maybe that Traci doesn’t send me an email.

“You are obviously not of the same mindset as the Blog name (Democrats & Liberals) suggests.”

Same mindset?
Sitting in a corner with others of a “same mindset” has accomplished nothing for the Dems except in getting Bush re-elected.
Keep ignoring our views and shoving your agenda is the ONLY way down our throats and you will keep watching from the sidelines.

“but we do not see your perspective and I for one do not want to”

AH, this is where we differ. I enjoy differing views and respect what a person has to say and am willing to listen.

“Have fun with the discussion, but don’t expect much to change.”

This is the exact attitude that has this country is such a mess today. “My way is the only way”

“I fail to see why you spend so much time on a blog that so obviously rejects your positions”

Fun, honest debate which I hope is why you have posted to the other columns.

jimmie,

Respect on this board is earned. If you are making good points there are very few people who will object to reasonable spelling and/or grammar.

Much (if not all) of what you say comes through with so much anger, it draws negative vibes.

There is much to be learned through the give and take of opinions on Watchblog. When you visit a thread that is posting mostly Liberal views and you have a different political view, you have to expect to feel like “the only kid on the block”. The same thing when you go to the Conservative posts with Liberal views.

Don’t pass up an opportunity to acquire knowledge, make your posts read to others like you would expect to read theirs.

I was prepared to respond to LawnBoy’s post above (which continued to attack jimmie’s grammar), but then I saw how jimmie appreciated my last attempt to help him, and I changed my mind.

(The whole “take this outside” comment suggests a “might makes right” view of the world. No wonder he supports Bush….)

But, jimmie, before you kick my ass, let’s get back to your argument and facts for a second. First, you basically claim that Democrats are idiots. Then you claim that Bush must have been right because the Democrats agreed with him. That doesn’t really imply that he’s a very intelligent man, does it? As an Independent, I thank you for supporting my argument that they’re all a bunch of talking monkeys, and he’s just the current alpha male.

then again i might be able to put a bullet in your head.

if you wanna sit around sucking each other off let me know.

I don’t post here a lot, but I read everything. I try to listen and learn.

Are these the kinds of things I can look forward to?

What do they accomplish?

This is how you “shed the light of truth and fact”?

OK, admittedly, I’m not jimmie’s biggest fan, but c’mon folks. He made some points for a change, let’s not add fuel to his fire by becoming schoolmarms about grammar, here. I don’t think it’s any secret that he’s not a brain surgeon, but he at least tried this time, so let’s do him the service of addressing him.

OK, jimmie, let’s break down your allegely devastating facts. They consist of quotes showing that some Democrats supported the war, and a link to a voting record.

In response, I’d say that I don’t think anybody seriously disputes that some people in Congress supported the war. However, those that did were quickly disillusioned by the fact that Bush’s case for war, upon which their support was based, was either fabricated, or at the very least ENORMOUSLY inaccurate to the point of egregious negligence in fact collection.

As time has stretched on, there have been manifold indications that the errors in Bush’s case for war were not the results of simple negligence, but were intentional misrepresentations designed from the beginning to manufacture a war.

So, as you can see, showing that Democrats supported the Iraqi conflict at the time doesn’t really prove all that much. Better luck next time.

Jimmie,

Perhaps you don’t mind being told we are going to war over the immanent threat of weapons of mass destruction, when there is on threat. I guess we are just going to have to agree we have different views, you’re OK being lied to, and I’m not…

Now about the “facts” you keep shouting about. Like the Voting record about going to war. Have you read the resolution? Here’s a little taste…

Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President `to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677’;

Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to `work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge’ posed by Iraq and to `work for the necessary resolutions,’ while also making clear that `the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable’;

…that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary

Also check out “SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS” where the section says…

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

If you read it, the overwhelming message says we are approving the use of force, to ensure that Saddam Hussein lives up to his commitments to the United Nations.

The question is why would anyone NOT vote for this?

Of course, hindsight is 20/20. The president was going to “fix” the intelligence and go to war. The intelligence that the congressional leaders viewed came from the administration. How sad they/we trusted him.

I have to confess, “jimmie’s” posts have been driving me away from reading through the posts in the blue column lately — because I can’t stand to scroll through so much impotent rage during a workday.
Often I wonder where all the rapid fire Republican rage comes from — after all, they hold the White House, both Houses of Congress, and have a majority sitting on the Supreme Court, so what the hell could be making them so bloody angry all the time?
Is it that despite the fact that their party currently holds all the power of the government, nothing is getting better for so many of them? So, rather than complain about that, they turn to flame-baiting liberals because they need to unleash their anger on someone, and this is a very convienient place to do it?
Yes, I think that’s it.
Misery loves company, right? So don’t give it to them.
Liberals interested in having an intelligent debate should always completely ignore such people, because it is quite possible that when they are no longer getting the response they desire, they’ll simply go away.

As for grammar and spelling:
Like others have mentioned here, I agree it says a great deal about that person and their level of intelligence. And as we all know, manners and intelligence have nothing to do with income level or background — but simply with the patience to listen and learn. Failing the ability to learn the rules of the English language, there are also such things as “Spell-check” and “Grammar-check” on a PC that might be utilized.
But again, doing so takes an extra second or two, so we might be asking too much from those whose patience level has always been stuck on zero.

Bert, I enjoyed reading your article.
Since you didn’t watch on TV, you may not be aware that there has been a bit of a flap about the fact that military folks that were used as a backdrop for Bush’s speach didn’t bother to clap for him when he entered the room. And then, only clapped briefly during the time he was speaking because some Republican staffers began it. Here is an article about that you might enjoy reading:
CNN, MSNBC failed to note that applause at Bush speech was prompted by Bush staffers

“…that some of the main explanations for going to war have been proven false?”

The reason for going into Iraq, was the possibility of the existence of weapons of mass destruction, something that most nations, as well as many prominent Democrats, believed was true.

“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”

President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

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

Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”

Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

“There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”

Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

“We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeing and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

“I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force ? if necessary ? to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

“There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have alway s underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

“He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do.”

Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

“We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. “[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction … So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real”
…Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

So, I guess my question would be, if all these people were as convinced of the existence of such a threat against the nation, why did they fail to take action to protect her?
The question of whether Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction posed a threat to the US has been answered, and now, those who stood idly by while a threat they believed real existed, are criticizing the individual who once and for all settled the issue…and did it with less loss of life than what we sustained on September 11.

David,

Your ability to assiduously quote is impressive, I guess, but don’t those quotes in fact demonstrate that the opposite of your contentions was true? You’re saying Democrats stood “idly by”, and yet all the quotations demonstrate a willingness to support the war effort..?

I suppose it’s their fault for believing deliberate misrepresentations.

“…those who stood idly by while a threat they believed real existed, are criticizing the individual who once and for all settled the issue…”

Ah, yes. And those who NEVER really believed in the threat continue to derive pecuniary profit and continued political office from our presence in the Middle East.

Dave,
Remember when Clinton ordered the bombing of Iraq 12/16/98? Republicans were outraged. Trent Lott said:

“I cannot support this military action in the Persian Gulf at this time. Both the timing and the policy are subject to question.”

Taking action to protect the nation against a perceived threat in Iraq did occur. And it happened over the objections of Republicans.

Under Clinton, there was a policy of regime change. Saddam Hussein was rather aggressively kept in a box by no-fly zones & periodic bombings. But a policy of regime change is very different from invasion.

As for the quotes from various Democrats. Interesting material. How could they be so wrong? We now know, from the Duelfer Report, that Iraq destroyed its WMD’s in 1995. The nuclear program ceased even earlier, after the First Gulf War.

So how on earth could so many people be so disastrously wrong?

Where did the bad information come from? How could the information be that bad, again and again?

In one of your quotes, Robert Byrd says:
“Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

In another quote, Hillary Clinton says:
“Intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.”

One major source of misinformation came from Dr Laurie Mylorie, particularly on Iraq’s links to terrorism & Al-Qaida.

But the intelligence reports were incredibly wrong, absolutely wrong, dead wrong. There were no two dozen Scuds in the western desert of Iraq. There were no mobile biological warfare labs… and so on… and so on…

It was not just one mistake. It was a consistent pattern.

The intelligence was manipulated. It was “fixed” around the policy.

And that, my friend, is why lying to Congress is an impeachable offense.

jimmie:

Sorry for confusing your post, but when you post angry messages and then suggest we discuss this face to face, it has a air of a threat. As far as kicking ass… I’ve never hit another person, so I’d probably get my ass handed to me.

As for the ‘stupid ass’ comment, I’d disagree with you there, but if you want facts for that - I’d feel really strange trying to collect those. I don’t think anyone here wants to hear me try and prove that I’m smart.

I have to agree with the posts above about your facts. I took the time to read them and visit the sites you linked to. I saw lots of opinion and quotes from wind-bag politicians, but no facts.

If someone can find a direct link to the actually document that Congress passed to OK the use of force in Iraq - I think that would prove once and for all exactly what the intent of Congress was in signing it. I contend that they OK’d the use of force only after all other options were exhausted, and that it was a way to force Bush to go to the UN.

tony,

Congree authorized Bush to do

whatever

phx8,

Are you saying that Bush was the one preparing the intellingence reports, or that he told intelligence officers to “fix” the reports? How can you say something like that with no proof? Bush did the same thing dems did, and that is quote the intelligence reports. It is not considered lying if you don’t know it is a lie. Democrats want to believe that Bush was lying because they HATE republicans and they can’t stand the fact that they haven’t been in office for 5 years. There are two sides to that coin. I believe that a majority of republicans HATE democrats. Neither side is happy unless they are in power, and the other side will do anything they can to degrade and bring down the one in power. If democrats win the next election, republicans will be doing the same thing that democrats are doing right now. Democrats do not want any of Bush’s nominees to get a vote, but that is nothing new. I am not sure but I think republicans did it during Clinton’s term and they will probably do it during the next democrats term. It is a never ending cycle. It has worked for over 200 years though. What if everyone agreed all the time. I think that’s when we would be in trouble. As long as democrats and republicans are arguing we are safe. There is a balance to everything.

unkind K,

“I suppose it’s their fault for believing deliberate misrepresentations.”

How do you know they were deliberate? Are you in government? Did you help fix the intelligence?

—-
It is not considered lying if you don’t know it is a lie.
—-
… it would not considered a lie - it would be considered incompetence.

As a leader you have to accept responsibility for your decisions and actions. Only Bush can say that he made the decision to go to war - no one else did. Everyone felt that WMDs were present, but the majority wanted to make sure all other option had been exhausted prior to using force. It was Bush that pulled back from the UN, it was Bush that forced the UN inspectors out of Iraq with less than 30 days to finish their inspections, it was Bush that sent in the troops.

I will agree that Congress should have looked closer at the information provided - but they DID NOT have the same information that Bush had. Anyone who wants to believe that does not understand the direct lines of communication between the intelligence committee, the military and the President. Congress can only react to what it is giver, the President can dig deeper and demand more.

When you put that together with all of the personal testimony revealed over the past 2 years or more - when pretty everyone (not tied to the Bush Administration) says the say thing: Bush was looking for justification for war with Iraq. the Downing Street memos are only the latest in a very long line of testimony to this. (And you can not refute the DS memos with stating that Blair does not feel that they are valid. He’s the one in the hot-seat, so you’d expect him to belittle the memos.)

KR criticized the typing and language useage of jimmie. That was a critique of the message in the literal sense. However, when you accused of laziness, you crossed our policy line.

KR, if the use of the language bothers you, skip the comment. You violated our Critique the Message, Not the Messenger with your accusation of laziness. Observe our policy, or take your comments elsewhere.

jimmie, KR put out flame bait for you, and you took it as pretext for violating our policy of critiquing the message, not the messenger, when you replied with: “your guess to the smarts of someone who spells words worng and doesnt bother to use caps thinking you have the brains to understand a point, makes it clear you are a ill informed judgemental person.”

Now you are as much an offender of our policy as KR is. Comply with our policy from this point forward or take your comments elsewhere.

Everyone else who has joined in the fray of discussing personal attributes of commentors here, stop it, or your comment priviliges here will be lost. There will be no more warnings in the comments in this article. Access will simply be cut off.

WB Managing Editor:

You are hardcore!

David, and anyone else with comments regarding our policies at WB, email them to editor@watchblog.com. DO NOT post them here. This comments section is for the discussion and debate of the article written above.

This comments section is for the discussion and debate of the article written above.

What a great idea.

kctim~

“Actually, I don’t get upset about much of anything, especially on here. Except maybe that Traci doesn’t send me an email.”

AAWW…hey darlin’ I’ve been out of town! Glad to hear you’ve missed me!

The commentor identified as “jim+mie” has violated our policy of Critique the Message, Not the Messenger, on a number of occasions. We have received complaints of this. I blocked his ISP, and he has returned to comment again and again under a number of new ISP ID’s.

There is little point to responding to any posts from “jim+mie” since his posts will be deleted and his ISP’s banned when found. I would ask editors to alert me when they see any new comments posted referring to jim+mie, so I may take the appropriate action.

Many thanks to all for their assistance and support in resolving this situation.

A Note From the WatchBlog Owner: I have discussed this issue with David Remer, the Managing Editor and we have agreed that jimmie needs to be banned. After repeated warnings that his posts were out-of-line, he continued to call people names, told them to “shut the f*ck up” and behaved in other less-than-appropriate ways.

Rather than moderating each of jimmie’s posts individually, David just deleted them all - realizing that the only way to stop jimmie from disrupting a civil discussion is to ban him outright and deny him ANY voice in this forum.

I support this decision. My years of running online communities has taught me that sometimes the only way to make the trolls and miscreants go away is to take drastic measures. For more about what guides my thinking about online community participation and management, please read this essay.