“I was dead flat wrong.”
Tweet
That’s Senator Jay Rockefeller, talking about his vote to authorize the war on Iraq by President Bush. Things like this make me wonder if the dam is finally cracking, are Democrats finally realizing that being just like Bush only slightly less so is not only a political loser, but morally incorrect? Senator Rockefeller’s said it, so have former Sen. Daschle and Rep. Gephardt to some extent. What say you, other Democrats? Sen. Kerry, Sen. Reid, Sen. Clinton, Sen. Edwards, Sen. Bayh… isn’t it time to simply admit that you were wrong and that we need to do the hard work of really securing our nation?
>> The Ice Is Breaking for Dems on Iraq
17 Responses to ““I was dead flat wrong.””
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Not to be too, too cynical, but this is mightily well timed to go with the polls showing the Dems as heavy favorites in ’06. Not that I’m complaining, just that folks don’t change overnight, and a feckless warmonger three years ago probably isn’t a budding ethicist today. Once a weathervane…. One can only hope, however, and I’ll take it while we build a true progressive movement on the state and local level.
http://www.progressivemajority.org/
Is Hackett a fake too?
Leads DeWine X 10 pts.
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-flash05a.html?project=elections06-ft&h=495&w=778&hasAd=1&mod=blogs
How is this a plus for Democrats? The public already suspects you don’t have a clue about foreign policy and are weak and ineffectual on terrorism. Now one of your leading lights finally is forced to admit he is clueless. Maybe thats his way of telling his fellow party members that we should elect a Republican in 2008.
Dugger
Actually, as of late, the public doesn’t seem to think much of how Bush is handling terrorism, either.
Rockefeller admitting he “was wrong” doesn’t mean he “is clueless.” If anything, he’s admitting that he “was clueless,” much like the current spate of war cheerleaders “still are.”
I don’t care what Republicans say, we know they don’t represent the majority of Americans, nor are they the voters we’re going after.
I think this is outstanding, and I think if Kerry had shown some backbone and just come out and said, “I was wrong, and this is why, and this is what we need to do about it,” he would have won. I think that was the big stickler for a lot of average Americans, the whole “I voted for it/I voted against it” thing. Sure, I understood what he meant, but that’s not how you win a campaign.
All we need are Democrats who know for what they stand – and then stand for it – and we’ll start seeing Democrats winning again in droves.
BD,
Yes, but I haven’t seen Bush’s terrorism-specific numbers (if they exist). Its very easy, and not necessarily inappropriate, to criticize from the sidelines, but to govern, to have an actual terrorism policy that has risks, that p*sses off X percentage of the population no matter what you do, is another matter. I still await a coherent, specific position from the Democrats on how they will kill terroists and fight terrorism. And if ‘kill terrorists’ is too bloodthirsty for you/them, fair enough, but put it out on the table, openly, and tell the American people that. If not, how you gonna kill ‘em?
And BTW, in my book after 8 years of any one-party total governance period, I’d expect changes. Bush is beatable, very beatable, but I still say an “understand the root causes” Democrat will destroy that little ‘Bush fatigue’ hypothesis right away.
Dugger
Damn, Dugger, that was eloquent. Good points, although any serious anti-terrorism expert would make clear that the killing has to be a small part of a much more comprehensive approach, a comprehensiveness that is tellingly lacking from the present White House ‘strategy’ (and it pains me to call it that). Cleo, I think Hackett is coming from a position of strength, something the Dems lack in spades, and if he’s riding a wave, then at least he caught it (or helped make it) before it was blatantly expedient. Really, the only Dems who can hold their heads high vis-a-vis the Iraq war are Dean and Gore. If the Dem establishment can’t realize how Hackett epitomizes the future of the Democratic Party, then in my opinion they deserve to lose.
Rockefeller was wrong in believing what Bush and the Cheney Administration said in the buildup to war. For some reason Bushlovers keep pointing to some Democrats and repeating the litany that ‘they thought Saddam had WMDs too!’ The Congressman from my district voted against invading Iraq, his reason being that Bush did not provide sufficient proof that Saddam had the WMDs.
Why were so many other people deluded by Bush? Dunno. Those of us who figured Bush for a complete liar from the beginning are still waiting for that clueless 35 – 39 percent to finally come around.
“Dunno”
Thats becomning a common progressive refrain. Perhaps you “dunno” because your origininal hypothesis is a crock. Gee, all those mainstream Republicans and Democrats were deluded and only a few “dunno” lefties blog posters saw the light and knew Bush was a “complete liar” (meaning you had the unique ability to read his mind). Righhtttt.
Dugger
Dugger, I’ve explained this to you before. Please pay attention this time. I don’t have a problem with killing terrorists. They’re enemy combatants. Combatants kill and get killed.
I have a problem with the idea that all you need to do to win a war on terror is kill all or at least enough of the terrorists, which is what you seem to advocate.
I think we would agree that if we had killed every single Japanese person at the end of World War II, we would have effectively won the war against Japan. But Islamic terrorists have no single nationality or ethnicity, all they have in common is an ideology.
You’ve made a lot of snarky and baseless comments about how weak a “root causes” platform would be, but the only solution you and your fictional Condi Rice could offer is to kill and then kill some more; then cross your fingers and hope it was good enough to keep America safe. You and Condi are gambling with the lives of every American–not just our troops–on a barely thought-out strategy.
Why the hell doesn’t this concern you?
Dugger; The ability to read minds, as you refer to it, could also be the predictability that comes with experience. Perhaps you have had a similar experience with a significant ‘other’.
You start to anticipate responses based on previous responses and you have, what appears to be, a foreknowledge of the answer a split second before it is given. It is not mind reading. It is past indicators. The 30% merely deduced the lies and deceptions from this quarter, and anticiapted correctly. Your attempt to make it mystical divination does not negate it’s value.
Dugger,
As I said, I was not deluded by Bush’s lies. From the start of his 2000 campaign to the present day I have considered him incapable as a leader and as a truth-teller. 133 members of Congress (representing many millions of constituents) voted against the 10 Oct 2002 resolution. It was not just a few lefty blog posters who doubted Bush’s word.
What I still dunno is WHY SOME 35-39 PERCENT OF THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, YOURSELF INCLUDED, HAVE NOT YET SEEN THE LIGHT OF DAY AND FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT BUSH HAS HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON OUR NATION AT HOME AND ABROAD. Maybe its the Fog of Posting in your case.
My original hypothesis on the mark. Bush and the Cheney Administration are proving that on daily basis. Those of us who were against the Bush war even before it began have seen the majority of Americans gradually take the same position we had back in 2002, that invading Iraq was a mistake.
Semant,
Nope. Whats going on here verges on paranoia. The left is outraged and sees anything that appears inconsistent to them as a lie. Never considerd is fog of war, fog of complex business, they (the ‘liar accusers’) are wrong, nuance, interpretation, communication lags and complexities, changing cirumstances, misspeaks, and mistakes. To lie, one must know the truth and say othrewise. How do you or progressives know what Bush knows – in his head and heart? You don’t and can’t. I have yet to see any conclusive evidence that would suggest Bush had an intent to lie. It isn’t enough to say Scott McClellan said this and Bush said that. Or that Bush said this and then said that. (‘Clinton is president. Clinton is not president.’ – is not a lie.)
Dugger
buma,
I hadn’t decided and then I saw all of your caps. I mean they were just awesome . Made your point. I now agree the Bushitler has lied.
BD,
yes. You have made that point and I understand that you think there is more to it than killing Ts. I do too, and I think there are more Ts than just Islamic ones – like McVeigh, like Andrew McCrae. But if we are in a War on Terror then we have to have a plan to fight and kill Ts – regardless of whatevr else needs to be done. I’ve not heard from Democrats on how they will do that and for me, when I hear them criticize how we fight the WOT, I expect an alternative if they are going to criticize. I bet the American people will wnat to know what their plan is too.
Dugger
Thanks dugger. It was obvious you’ve been getting lost in the fog of your own posting. Sometimes people just need to be slapped upside the head so they can finally begin the process of removing themselves from that dwindling percentage who think Bush is doing a heckuva job.
Right you are Buma. But man those caps! You don’t have to make sense, be logical or even stray from endemic left wing paranoia. Just hit ‘em with caps and, viola!, point made!
Dugger
So, Dugger, what is the Republican plan to fight and kill terrorists?
I haven’t heard one. I’ve heard a lot of chest-thumping platitudes but little else. I’ve seen Cheney grasping at torture as some kind of reliable method, I’ve seen the idea of “flypaper strategy” trumpeted proudly, as if our troops should be happy to be called “bait.”
Since there were no terrorist training camps in Saddam’s Iraq* until we invaded and destabilized the country, how was the invasion a cogent strategy for fighting terrorism? Surely you won’t argue that we were there to hunt and kill the terrorist insurgents who didn’t exist before the occupation created an insurgency?
How has the strategy worked? Since 9/11, Madrid and London have suffered bombing attacks from Islamic extremists, and we have no way of knowing where or when the next one will occur. That’s why I argue that the Republican strategy is little better than playing hunches and throwing darts.