This video from the RNC would be funny if it weren’t so transparently pathetic. Yes, Democrats thought Hussein was a bad guy — especially when they were given slanted intelligence briefings that made it clear Hussein was gonna launch a nuke in five minutes. And none of them made the final decision on invading and occupying Iraq.
The buck stops at 1600 Pennsylvania – no matter how much Bush tries to evade responsibility. The blood, sweat, and tears are on his hands.
No, Caruso, I said stuff it because you’re – like the rest of the right – wilfully ignorant. It’s clear as day what Reynolds, etc. are saying. But you guys walk around like bobos pretending “what, who, how?”.
The Senate voted to give Bush the authority to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq. It was his final choice to invade and occupy Iraq. Or are you know saying that the buck doesn’t stop with the president?
A Question for Oliver:
Had Democrats held their ground in 2002 (keeping in mind, they held the Senate at the time), how could Bush have gone to war with Iraq? Had they not authorized the use of force on 10/10/2002, the final decision on invading and occupying of Iraq would have been made.
Haha. Stuff it.
That’s the best you can come up with now? Or are you pissed that I had Goldstein linking to your drivel about the White House responding to lousy ‘reporting?’
Jay, when did you raise your standards?
Reynolds, why do you keep linking to people who say Democrats are unpatriotic without just saying it yourself?
Which one — Jonah Goldberg or Jon Henke — is saying that Democrats are unpatriotic? I must have missed something.
Good commentary on the question raised by Farris at WaPo today.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/14/AR2005111401018.html
Oh stuff it, Caruso.
Hey Farris, like Rockefeller said, they aren’t responsible for their votes.
The Senate voted to give Bush the authority to enforce UN resolutions on Iraq.
Oh bullshit. Don’t be such phony ok. They authorized the USE OF FORCE and you know it. Bush has no authority to enforce United Nations resolutions. That’s the job of the UN Security Council.
And I asked the question because I’m tired of the same bullshit accusations. Whenever somebody questions your nonsense, you resort to saying, “Don’t question my patriotism!” You guys want to be able to accuse the President of anything, but you never want to be called on any of it and when you are, you retreat to that whole ‘patriotism’ canard.
Caruso, just two posts up you claim Bush didn’t have authority to enforce UNs. Keep your talking points straight. No, the Democrats who voted in favor of the resolution bear responsibility for their actions – even if their actions were influenced by manipulated data. But the buck stops with the President. Bush gets the ups for invading Afghanistan, he also gets the downs for 2,000 casualties. Is that really such a concept to get through your thick head?
Stop it. They have no.
They’ve been saying it since before the war, characterizing folks against the war as “objectively pro-Saddam”. It’s true, and you know it. Quit pretending. Jesus.
That s bullshit and you know it. They authorized the use of force (it was Bush who decided to use the force in the form of an invasion and occupation) to enforce the UN resolutions. All of a sudden Bush has no authority?
Oliver, who said Bush didn’t have any authority? You’re acting like the Democrats who voted for this authorization get a free pass because they were duped into it by the White House. The cowboy idiot from Texas who can’t put together complete sentences, suddenly becomes a svengali that can bewilder United States senators into believing his lies? Puh-lease. If those Democrats are THAT stupid, they don’t deserve to hold office.
Reynolds and his ilk have repeatedly said to be against this war is to be against America
Stop it. They have no. Such accusations are a condition of somebody who sees what they want to see. You’re like so many Christian conservatives in America who claim to be “persecuted” every day. You say something, you’re repudiated for saying it, and instead of dealing with that repudiation and responding to it, you’d rather come up with the notion that your patriotism is being questioned. Enough already.
Jay C,
I have to say you’re standing on thin ice on this one. True congress did authorize the use of force as a last resort, after all other avenues were exhausted. It wasn’t as though that resolution stated specifically go to war right now consequences be dammed.
Our social contract and police force regulations give police officers the right to use force as a last resort, but if a cop shots an unarmed man and then claims, “well you people gave me the authority to carry a gun and use it, the guys death is your fault” he certainly wouldn’t be exonerated of any wrong doing. In fact the judge might laugh out loud at that defense.
It is dispicable to suggest that because Bush had the authority to make such a decision that it absolves him of any blame when he rushed that decision based on quiestionably valid intel, ignoring dissenting voices.
That’s bullshit and you know it. They authorized the use of force (it was Bush who decided to use the force in the form of an invasion and occupation) to enforce the UN resolutions. All of a sudden Bush has no authority? Way to pull things out of your ass. And bullshit accusations? Reynolds and his ilk have repeatedly said to be against this war is to be against America, when it’s quite clear that it is the war supporters and apologists like you who advocate the position that would do the most harm to our country. I know you don’t care, but it’s kind of ridiculous to be whiny little bitches when you’re called on it.
Like your president, you should stand in your b.s.
Caruso, just two posts up you claim Bush didn t have authority to enforce UNs.
I know that twit, and it’s true. Christ, read the fucking resolution. It’s obvious you didn’t, because you apparently have no idea what you’re talking about.
No, the Democrats who voted in favor of the resolution bear responsibility for their actions – even if their actions were influenced by manipulated data.
Yeah, whatever. The “I was duped!!!” defense. First of all, it’s bogus and second of all, it’s the most cowardly, chickenshit thing a person can do and that is blame their laziness and their lack of doing their job on somebody else. But you’re buying into, kissing John Edwards ass because he wants to make sure he can tap into the left wing anti-war donor base.
But the buck stops with the President. Bush gets the ups for invading Afghanistan, he also gets the downs for 2,000 casualties. Is that really such a concept to get through your thick head?
Fine, and if Democrats would present HONEST criticisms of the war, this would all be different. But they want to go back and revise history. They want to say, “None of this was our fault! We were hoodwinked! We were duped!!” It’s sickening.
They ve been saying it since before the war, characterizing folks against the war as objectively pro-Saddam . It s true, and you know it. Quit pretending. Jesus.
Being partisan is one thing. When you’re purposely intellectually dishonest like this, it pisses me off. Glenn did not call all those opposed to war “objectively pro-Saddam.” He’s referring to the typical anti-war nuts, who are the same old people using the same old slogans. In addition, he was talking about the people who weren’t opposed to the war because they were opposed to war. Those people also opposed us attacking Afghanistan. No, it was the people who suggested bullshit motives for why the administration wanted to attack Iraq. “He wants to avenge his Daddy.” “He and Cheney want to enrich their oil buddies.” “The neo-con cabal that pulls the strings want to take over.” Sound familiar?
Jay,
Why do you even bother with this idiot?
Doesn’t it seem odd that OW and his parrots have cooled on the whole “Bush Lied” theme since it has come out that Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) admitted on national television that he was sharing intel. with Bashar Assad? Funny how that works.
Bush, along with republicans, along with the people in this thread defending repubublicans, lied about the war and continue to lie about the lies.
outer soace,
“continue to lie about the lies. ‘
If one is lying about lying, doesn’t that mean one is telling the truth. Was that your subtle way of sending a message of support to us repubbadubbabubblicans?
Dugger, I Thank You and Mr Rove (AKA ‘EG”) Thanks You
[...] er 16, 2005 at 12:05 pm This is an amusing new defense for Democrats, offered up by Oliver Willis: This video from the RNC would be funny if it weren’ [...]
“Lying about lying is REALLY telling the truth!”
No logic is too faulty as long as the punchline compliments your party.
Glenn did not call all those opposed to war objectively pro-Saddam.
Yes, he did. Why do you continue to lie about this and oh, so much more?
Yes, he did.
No, he did not and if he did, prove it. I read his entry regarding that, so lay it out.
Oliver Willis is a liar.
After doing a quick search I found this statement from Instapundit.com, and this is just the first one-
“Will the Second Gulf War be viewed as an unnecessary conquest of a benign nation, as some of the pro-Saddam morons would have us believe?”
Do I have to point out who the real liars in this thread are?
“Do I have to point out who the real liars in this thread are?”
You certainly do and you have to back it up with thought and logic. Otherwise you look like nothing more than a nasty little name caller. First off consider lying indicates intent. So you have to prove intent. Mind reader are we???
And BTW, nobody is impressed with out-of-context quotes. There are and were pro-Saddam morons.
Dugger
Lets concentrate on the fact that your winger pals got called out on saying instapundit never called any anti-war people ‘pro-saddam.’ That was just the first instance in many that come up, do you want me to post every single one? I could, or you could learn how to use google yourself, or you dont care about finding out youre playing dumb.
From the same guy who thinks lying about lying is really telling the truth.
Typical of you guys to shift the debate over to technicalities that dont matter.
outer_space, I don’t want to hear any of your whining. Considering that Oliver has said conservatives “hate America”, I’m not shedding any tears for him getting his panties in a wad because Glenn calls a bunch of fruit loops “pro-Saddam.”
Lets concentrate on the fact that your winger pals got called out on saying instapundit never called any anti-war people pro-saddam.
Oh bullshit. What I said was that Glenn did not call ALL (not ANY) anti-war people ‘pro-Saddam.’ Christ, you’re calling me a liar and you can’t even fucking read.
That didn’t go well, did it? Reload:
Today’s reading lesson:
Here’s what Jay wrote:
Here’s what Reynolds wrote:
Glenn plays a dirty trick, but he plays it openly. He conflates American public opinion against an invasion with “the anti-war movement”, same old people, blah, blah.
So here’s your test question, boys:
If American public opinion against the war is the same as the anti-war movement, and the anti-war movement is “objectively pro-Saddam”, did Glenn call anyone who opposes the war “pro-Saddam”?
But regardless of whether members of the anti-war movement subjectively support Saddam (many of them, as David Corn has reported, are more accurately described as anti-American than pro-Saddam, but there are plenty of thoughtful folks like Henley who don’t fit that mold) the fact is that their opposition to the war is a key element in his strategy.
Today’s reading lesson:
Here’s what Jay wrote:
Here’s what Reynolds wrote:
THIS POST OF MINE has upset some of the antiwar folks because I said that the peace movement is playing into Saddam’s hands and is thus “objectively pro-Saddam.” (Jim Henley has been all over this — scroll up and down from this post — and it rates a mention in Tapped, which calls the statement “uncharacteristically simple-minded”).
Well, Saddam says — in a passage quoted in that very post — that he’s stalling because he thinks that if he waits long enough American public opinion (which I interpret, reasonably enough, I think, to mean “the antiwar movement”) will force Bush not to invade. And there’s nothing new about that strategy – it’s been the strategy of every U.S. adversary since Vietnam. (What’s more, the “antiwar movement” that they’ve relied on has been pretty much the same people, using the same slogans, regardless of the actual circumstances involved.)