The right again demonstrates their capacity for selective hearing. The current target of their ire is Rep. John Murtha, about the only Democrat around who’s been able to articulate a coherent assesment and policy for Iraq. They’re angry as usual, because Murtha cited the pullout from Somalia by President Clinton as an example of changing course. But what they ignore is that Murtha also cited Reagan’s pullout from Beirut as another example of changing course. The message the right is trying to send out is that Murtha is endorsing a move that emboldened terror, and by a Democrat no less - but as Dick Cheney has himself alleged — Reagan’s pullout helped terrorists in the eyes of the right.
The vice president highlighted seven occasions when he said he felt the United States did not hit back strongly enough. The first — the 1983 bombing of a Marine barracks in Beirut that killed 241 Americans — resulted in U.S. troops being withdrawn from the city by the Reagan administration. Many of those killed came from Camp Lejeune, members of the 1st Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment.
So to recap - Murtha citing Clinton is cause for derision, but Murtha citing Reagan?
What? What? Speak up, I’ve got some static…. I… can’t… hear… you.
That’s what happens when your movement absorbs intellectual dishonesty as its central thesis folks. That’s what it takes to be a conservative.
The only one intellectually dishonest is you. Murtha came out as supportive of two of the worst military disasters in the past 35 years, that Osama has expressly said emboldend him, and your response is that Conservatives need to go out of their way to slam one of their own?!?
Fine. Reagan made just as big a mistake as Clinton. Now Murtha/Kerry/Pelosi/Willis are activly rooting to make an even greater one.
If George W. Bush passes for a spokesperson for the Republican Party re: national security, that’s scary. What is Bush’s plan for success in Iraq? How does Bush plan to help Maliki flush out the militias and extend governmental authority outside the Green Zone? The only policy I see from Bush is let Iraq bleed to death and hope that Maliki can work a miracle of a country spiraling into anarchy. I don’t support a precipitous withdrawal. But the status quo ain’t working either. The great Baghdad security cordon has done nothing to stop the violence this weekend. It’s probably made matters worse, actually, because it’s only alienating Sunnis. Who do you think is conducting this security cordon? Boy Scouts? No, it’s Badr Corps militiamen.
I guess I follow the point you’re making, klnda sorta, but not really. It doesn’t matter, though; it’s irrelevant to the (much) larger issue. That issue, for me, is whether Murtha really has anything resembling a coherent and workable set of suggestions (maybe adding up to a plan) for our involvement in Iraq. You seem to think he does, but I listen to him and cringe, just cringe.
I don’t question his sincerity or patriotism or any of that. I have some admiration for anyone who can hold the same job for 3 decades, plus. But does it not seem the train has kind of left the station in terms of his “sharpness”? If he is becoming what passes for a spokesperson for the Democratic party re: national security, that’s scary.
Bear in mind too that the pullout from somalia, you know, the one the republicans now hate Murtha for endorsing, was in fact the official policy position of the Republican Policy Committee. So come right down to it thats the republicans criticizing Murtha for supporting their positions years ago. Unless they are publically willing to say that their support of these positions at those times was incorrect, they dont really have the right to tear down Murtha for it, do they?
And Farris, you cant really blame Clinton for that when his sin is really conceding the argument to the Republicans in that instance, so you may want to change your last statement to “Republicans have made severely horrible strategic mistakes in the past, but this one is worse because its the left pushing for it this time.” You know, just for the sake of clarifying your position.
pulling out of Beirut was a bad move, as the Lebanese would attest, given that they had to endure bloodbath after bloodbath until they were occupied by Syrian troops. It was not a good move by Reagan and there were consequences. However, comparing Cold-war Lebanon to post-Somalia / post-9/11 Iraq is idiotic. The pull-out from somalia was specifically pointed to by bin Laden himself as a move which emboldened the Islamofasists.
Pulling out of Iraq would surely do the same. the world has changed and some of us have learned that you can’t play pussy-foot with the terrorists.
Oh, and Murtha is an idiot. Hitch you star to his wagon and enjoy the mid-terms, ollie. Relying on planes from Okinawa to hit the terrorists sounds like fine strategery to me.
(You have to admit that his performance on MTP was pathetic… seriously…)
…okay I posted an hour ago, making a point about how really Clinton supported the Somalia pullout after being pressured b the republicans, and its still sitting in moderation. Can I ask is there some sort of specific flag that gets a comment sent into moderation limbo like that and what can I do to avoid it?
The point Murtha was trying to make was that to continue on our present course is only making matters worse for the Iraqi people and more importantly, our troops, who remain in the line of fire. His primary point was that our continued presence is only allowing the ones killing both American soldiers and innocent civilians an excuse, however false, for continued attacks and acts as a recruiting tool for terrorists. His recommendation was that by pulling back, i.e. redeploying, let the Iraqis take complete control over their own security.
The false attacks by right wing hacks, such as Karl Rove, is nothing but the usual cheapshot politics we have come to see by this administration and the republican party. Bashing Murtha and democrats in general with such false accusations of “cutting and running” is only “feel good” tonic to try and hold what is left if of the moderate republicans who are getting fed up with the total incompetence of this administration.
From one of your links:
The move by Clinton in 1993 to evacuate Somalia…is widely acknowledged as a seminal moment in the evolution and elevation of Al Qaida…That is not to say that Reagan did us any favors by pulling out of Beirut in 1984, but fortunately the jihadis were busy with the Soviets and not focusing on the US.
Now I have to wonder if you even read it.
Oliver, both of your links clearly include Murtha’s reference to Reagan’s move. The Clinton decision in Somolia was specifically discussed by bin Laden, so bin Laden’s remarks are included as well. An intellectually honest reading of these editorials would conclude that the problem with Murtha is not his citing of a Democratic President’s policy, but his citing of a policy that was specifically referenced by the enemy as bolstering the enemy’s confidence.
Does anyone actually think the Rethugs want to pull out of Iraq at any point? If so, what are you smoking, and where did you get it? The occupation of Iraq has served the interests of two factions of the Bush regime: the neocons and Big Oil. The neocons got their wish list fulfilled up to a point; they got Saddam Hussein out of power, and they got to inflict their ‘free market’ hell on the Iraqi economy. Their desire to ‘privatize’ Iraqi oil was thwarted by Big Oil, which wants ’state-run’ Iraqi oil facilities to keep their production low (which will help our old friends the Saudis maintain their large market share, and will help keep overall prices high).
Meantime, the neocons’ ‘free market’ transformation has turned a battered semi-socialist country into a third world economic colony overnight, which has led to a lot of pissed-off locals with guns organizing against the occupiers (and against each other). Big Oil’s low-production goal will make sure the country stays poor (except for the Bushies’ hand-picked Gunga Din gov’t, of course).
All the sectarian violence only helps, because it provides an excuse (lack of security) for keeping production low and prices high. It also provides the Bushies with an excuse to maintain a U.S. presence in Iraq. Finally, it allows all the Bushies’ corporate friends to keep lining their pockets with our tax dollars. Why would the Bushies want to leave? Things are working just fine.
And even if you take Ollies “interpretation” at face value, the really important thing is : What did the democrats and republicans learn from their mistakes.
Republicans: Picking up and leaving is not a good option until the job is done
Democrats: well, cutting and running didn’t work before, but what the hell, lets try it again! Third times a charm. At least it gives us some sort of a rallying point….
OK. I believe I understand Murtha is for ‘cutting and running’ or the Orwellian ’strategic withdrawal’ in Iraq and against, as he calls it, “staying and paying.” But coherent? Not even close.
And as the recent votes have shown, particularly the Senate’s, he’s woefully out of the mainstream of American thought. Woefully. And he’s all yours. Maybe a major leader in the House.
IMO, Murtha’s a doddering fool who got his foot in the national publicity door by both serving in the military and belonging to a politcal party nationally perceived as weak on military issues and security (an easy way these days to rise in prominence on something other than merit). If Democrats weren’t so insecure about their stance/pedigree on security issues, they would never tolerate Murtha.
Dugger
H_F: Spare Oliver the analysis — he’s immune.
At least the Republicans have a plan, right? You know, Stay the Course. 2,500 is an insignificant number. And Rush is right about that.
Maybe I’m mistaken, but weren’t the Republicans for a pullout from Somalia? I mean, why else would they have tried (according to the National Review to accelerate the withdrawal from Somalia? Apparently Clinton wasn’t cutting-and-running fast enough for the Republicans of the time.
But then, Republicans wouldn’t just make shit up in order to make a Democrat look bad, now, would they?
When you end your post with “That s what happens when your movement absorbs intellectual dishonesty as its central thesis folks. That s what it takes to be a conservative”, then nobody is going to take you seriously.
It’s people like you (and there are those on both sides of the alley) that kill potentially great political debate by answering them with smug, disrespectful one-liners.
And yes I know, I don’t have to read your website if I don’t want to.
The biggest military disaster of the past 30 years is Iraq. Bush is to blame. Bush lost Iraq. No amount of Murtha bashing or liberal hatred is going to change that. Thank god that the pro-war fringe view has been rejected by America as well as the world.
Alex asked:
I do; Republicans want to pull out of Iraq when we win.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue is simple: the Democrats are seeking an exit strategy, while the Republicans are seeking victory.
In a comment awaiting moderation, I linked to a National Review piece discussing how the Republicans of 1993 tried to pass a resolution to make Clinton cut-and-run from Somalia even faster than he did withdraw.
The particular piece of legislation was H.RES.239 in the 103rd Congress, if any of the GOOPers “contributing” to this discussion would like to look it up.
If Clinton was making a stupid choice that emboldened bin Laden, the signal from the Republicans of the time was even more heartening to him.
Conservatives counsel idiocy and call it bravery. Democrats counsel reason and get called cowards.
Here’s more evidence that Iraq is already lost, and that the only answer is to pull out. We shouldn’t throw any more lives away on George’s folly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/16/AR2006061601768.html
At least the first conservative blog on which I read about this, Sister Toldjah’s, did mention the Reagan withdrawal after the Marine barracks bombing.
Her point was that, with Mr Murtha continually urging pull-outs from areas in which we face the leat bit of opposition, it’s somewhat ludicrous for Democrats to tout him as a “hawk.”
I do; Republicans want to pull out of Iraq when we win.
Then you are going to have to tell us what “winning” in Iraq means. Because your pResident cannot.
factcheck - you beat me to it. So far the only barometer for when we leave that I can discern is “when the Iraqis stand up, we’ll stand down.” But I have not heard any metric as to what constitutes “standing up”. X-thousand Iraqi troops or police trained? Fewer than Y bombs going off per month? More than Z barrels of oil being produced?
At last count there were I think precisely zero Iraqi batallions capable of operating without US assistance, down from precisely 1 a couple years ago. Wasnt there that think a while ago too about how the first graduating class from Iraqi’s military bootcamp, during the graduation ceremony, when they found out they had to protect the Sunni area, all actually stripped off their camo fatigues and left there and then? On what basis is it even possible to say that Iraq will ever stand up so that we may stand down? Clearly if we’re committed to protecting them from the problems we caused without concern to the loss of our soldiers lives, what incentive will they ever have to voluntarily get shot at to protect themselves?
When we get it down to only 25% of the population being governed by local sectarian militia groups, then we’ve won!
“Republicans want to pull out of Iraq when we win.”
And I bet you’ll only sell your Enron stock when it gets back up to $20 a share, too. The Bush administration is throwing away our soldiers’ lives so that suburban white guys can feel a little testosterone in their lives. The GOP’s repulsive, destructive solipsism will be long remembered.
The difference between Democrats and Republicans on this issue is simple: the Democrats are seeking an exit strategy, while the Republicans are seeking victory.
Too bad they weren’t thinking about an exit strategy when Bush, Cheney and Rummy rushed our men and women over to invade Iraq with insufficient forces, insufficient protective gear and no plan. When and what will they consider “victory”? The ones that want to stay ’til hell freezes over need to saddle up and get their ass over there. Our troops shouldn’t have to do 2 and 3 tours of duty walking around with targets on their backs while the politicians sit on their asses and do nothing because that dont have the courage to admit mistakes and make corrections when they have been proven to be wrong.
What are the metrics on the government death squads? Are they standing up per our initial capability assessments vis-a-vis house-to-house sectarian murder missions? Or do they need more training before they can be classed as “standing up”?
While I agree that this is probably an accurate statement, I also know that in practice this is equivalent to “it’s over when Cheney and Rummy say it is, and not before.” I hope you’ll pardon me if that indicator doesn’t inspire a great deal of confidence.
Rheinhard,
“But I have not heard any metric as to what constitutes standing up . ”
I doubt there is one single measure. When the on-site military thinks the Iraqis can handle it - is when. That might vary pre exactly how capable the batallions are and the perceived strength of the political leadership.
Dugger, Murtha plans on going to Iraq and then taking a short hop from there over to Djakarta.
The invasion was well executed, though the purpose behind it was pure folly and wishful thinking. The occupation, however, has been an unmitigated disaster, and it is worsening on all fronts. Anyone who rhapsodizes about the efficiency of the first three weeks is throwing sand in your eyes.
“Cheney and Rummy rushed our men and women over to invade Iraq with insufficient forces, insufficient protective gear and no plan” BushWacked
I simply cannot let this sort of recurrent idiocy stand.
Iraq was the single fastest, most efficient, least deadly invasion in the history of mankind. It is the benchmark. To this point we have liberated an entire country with a total death rate of 2500 american soldiers. Everyone of those 2500 soldiers is a tremendous loss. As was every one of the 10+ THOUSAND allied soldiers lost on D-day. 2500 americans were lost to liberate a country of 35 million people.
You can argue about whether or not we have enough troops in Iraq NOW. But stop with the ridiculous statements about not enough troop to invade…
Funny how the right keeps parroting what Osama bin Laden says emboldens terrorists. How aobut having Osama bin Laden run free this long after the 9-11 attacks saying things and how that must embolden terrorists.
You can’t stay and finish the job if you don’t have any idea how to accompish the job, haven’t made any progress on the job in 4 years, can’t explain why you are doing the job in the first place, or even what the job entails.
Rheinhard
But in a way you are right. At some point, the decision will probably be made by Rumsfeld (not Cheney). But it will be based on recommendations from in-theater commanders. If you wanted to go paranoid, the way its shaping up to me, strictly amateur opinion, there will be a water-shed reduction by the summer of 2008.
Dugger
“will be based on recommendations from in-theater commanders”
Given Rumsfeld’s history of firing anyone who gives him recommendations or assessments that aren’t “politically correct” for the administration, why would you believe that these recommendations would be sound?
The point is the administration has intimidated the brass so that anyone who presents evidence of the political mission’s failure is marginalized. Only yes-men (the Duggers of the military) who play along get promoted.
So, actually, you can’t name one. Now, its some (?) are ‘marginalized”. Horrors! That evil Rummy. A marginalizer.
TomY,
Since he has a “history”, name three fired by Rumsfeld for giving Admin politically incorrect advice. Remember, you said ‘fired’.
Dugger
Fired, dismissed, turned down for promotion, pressured into retirement, etc.
The Achille’s heel of the Democrats is indecision. Democrats are willing to listen to diverse opinions, which has been spun into a weakness. Rather than using that as an asset, the Demos have digressed to pre-feminist macho-female submissive role. Rather than advocating the issues of its constituents, the demos attempt to mollify the undecided, then the wavering, then the weak repugs, then whoever will give money. Where is the soul of the Democratic Party? The DLC (Democrats Lacking Courage) has preached such a strategy, “pretend you are Republicans and you might get elected.”
I say this as a 4-term Democratic legislator, not as an outsider.
People don’t vote Democrat because of the issues, but because Democrats no longer have soul … and courage.
Jim Lendall
Candidate for Governor of Arkansas
Green Party of Arkansas
jimlendall2006.com
” How aobut having Osama bin Laden run free this long after the 9-11 attacks”
Running free? what, you saw him getting a bagel and a schmear in Greenich Village lately? Grabbing a latte at the Capital Hill Starbucks?
The guy is try to make bad audio tapes while riding on the back of a syphilitic donkey trying to hunch down and not look obvious, somewhere in the Hindu Kush.
He has masterminded how many attacks in the US since 9/11 ….what’s that you say?….none?
At least we agree that Rumsfeld only hears what he wants to hear, and suppresses dissenting opinions. Hey, did you ever apologize for the “Bush has never told one lie” lie that you told, Dugger?
Tommy, having abandoned any pretext he can now even come close to standing up for his “point” that Rummy fires anybody who gives politically incorrect advice, foolishly shifts to another topic he is also destined to be humiliated on:
“Hey, did you ever apologize for the Bush has never told one lie lie that you told, Dugger?”
Not one progressive, not a single one on this progressive-laden site, has taken the dictionary meaning of the word “lie”, which most commonly requires some intent to deceive, and been able to prove or come close to proving a single Bush lie. Now, this may be unfair, but I am going to dismiss out of hand, the possibility that you can read minds and know Bush’s intentions. Thus, you are wrong twice in a single day. Try for a third?
Dugger, You Gotta Know When to Fold ‘Em, Son
“You Gotta Know When to Fold Em, Son”
We agree: bring the troops home now.
Republicans want to pull out of Iraq when we win.— duggerspeak
Which could be when:
Saddam’s WMDs are rendered assunder.
The torture prisons are out of business.
Iraqis greet our troops with flowers.
The mission is accomplished.
Iraq’s rejuvenated oil industry pays for the invasion.
We turn the next corner.
The insurgency is in its last throes — for 13 months and counting.
The new Iraqi constitution is established, the new government is set up, the new prime minister is selected.
When they get past the next 6 months next 6 months next 6 months next 6 months.
Yet the liberal media tacitly allows the Republican admistration to chastise Democrats for ‘having no plan.’
On John Snow’s resignation:
“No, he has not talked to me about resignation. I think he’s doing a fine job.”
That was a lie. He’d already talked to Snow about his resigning in favor of Henry Paulson, who’d he spoken to about replacing Snow. He knew better, and answered with intent to deceive. The man is demonstrably, incontestably a liar. As are you, Dugger.
“we do not torture”
That’s a lie.
Dugger’s standard for lying requires mind-reading. That’s convenient, since your standard for winning the Iraq war requires believing in magic.
Shinseki: made to retire early after embarrasing Rumsfeld by stating that the occupation would require more troops.
Batiste: Rumsfeld ignored his requests for more troops, so he quit.
People like Dugger who make excuses for Rumsfeld’s failures try to turn this into an issue — any issue! — other than the fact that Rumsfeld took us into a war of choice, and then lost it. Try supporting America instead of the Bush Administration, Dugger and Pedro. It might make you sleep better at night. Also, try using Viagra for your erectile disfunction instead of bad foreign policy.
ahh yes… the great patriotic left wing. Declare “defeat” and come on home.
Hell that tactic was sucessful in Vietnam wasn’t it?
it was if you weren’t a south vietnamese or one of the millions who found themselves in the “killing fields” of Cambodia or Laos.
I have an alternative Tomy. Why don’t YOU just accept the fact that we aren’t going to leave Iraq until things are stabilized and the Iraqi government can fend for themselves. And since the republicans currently run the show, you can scream all YOU want about us having “lost”, and it won’t make a lick of difference.
Now, on a different subject: Troops in Iraq are erectile therapy? I better sell my Cialis and Viagra stock! LOL
Namecalling will get you nowhere. As usual a barrage of insuts from somone who has no intelligent remarks to make. Have a nice day.
We’ve already lost Iraq. Bring the troops home. No matter how much you need them there for your erectile therapy, Pedro, they should never have gone there, and there is no use keeping them there. Scream all you like, hate liberals all day and all night; the war is lost, and Bush lost it.
yea dumbass, I would love to talk about it.
You lefties all think you are brilliant tacticians caused you played “Battleship” when you were a kid.
You know what we were worried about when we attacked Iraq? Gas. At that time you pinkos were screaming that the troops didn’t have the most up-to-date MOPP gear available.
Twenty-twenty hindsight is useless. Now if you had been screaming about up armored HMVVS then, well, you were brilliant. But you weren’t.
As long as Bush sits in the WH, nothing will be “adequate” for you. You don’t give a rats ass about “the troops”. What you hope for desperately is some “issue” that will give you losers enough leverage to win an occasional election. Here is a hint Einstein: The troops will NEVER have the most up-to-date equipment. Why? Because it takes time to make and distribute the stuff. We didn’t have enough armor for all the in-theater vehicles, so it took time.
As far as Murtha is concerned, I sure hope your philosophy holds for everyone. As far as I can tell about 90% of the right wingers on this blog served in the military, and about 10% of the rest of you did. Do you find it pathetic when the lefties who never served bash us?
Yea, I thought not……
You can argue about whether or not we have enough troops in Iraq NOW. But stop with the ridiculous statements about not enough troop to invade&
First of all you have no control over this blog and I can argue what the hell I believe. And twisting my words around doesn’t work either.
Want to talk about “going to war with the army you have”?
Want to talk about soldiers sent over without all of the protective gear, while their families scraped up what they could to send them what they needed out of their own pockets?
Want to talk about Humvees that were not supplied with adequate armor? While Rummy sat on his ass in his nice comfortable office, american soldiers salvaged armor and modified their vehicles.
And there are republicans who agree with me about not enough troops:
That was my point. And now to see people like Rove and Cheney, who never served a frigging day in their life, bashing John Murtha, who did two tours in Nam and a military career in the marines that spanned 37 years, is pathetic and does not speak well for the republican party. Murtha is saying what he believes is best for our troops based on his own experience. If you disagree with him, fine. But the derogatory references from bush supporters on this blog to him being a “doddering old fool”, etc. are nothing but horseshit.
People forced out (fired, resigned, re-assigned and demoted) for failing to tow the Bush line (many are military):
list 1
list 2
list 3
How about asshats who failed their way to success:
Just because they walk upright and wear a suit doesn’t make them human
And no, the invasion did not have enough troops. Remember the failure to secure weapons dumps due to insufficient personnel (in particular, the stolen HMX), or the looting and destruction of the Iraq Museum, and hey, why not include the dismissal of the Iraqi Army, many of whom were already pre-disposed to hate us, but who were given the added incentive of being thrown into poverty. Sure we had a relatively easy time rolling over Saddam’s “army,” a though that was a surprise after a dozen years of sanctions, but we did nothing to lay the ground work for the occupation (unless you consider rampant corruption and cronyism “planning”).
Now somebody tell me how anyone has addressed the original point of this thread, which is that the GOP is being intellectually dishonest by narrowly focusing on a perceived mistake by a democratic president while ignoring a similar incident under republican leadership?
BTW, the idea that Osama bin Laden is the source of honesty and wisdom on all U.S. strategic decisions is pretty funny. So am I to understand that Osama is a murderous terrorist but an honest and accurate one who calls it like it is?
(Demanding US withdraw from Iraq, in audiotape broadcast on Al Jazeera, October 18 2003)
So our occupation must be emboldening the terrorists since Osama said so, right? We can’t “cut and run” because Osama will point and laugh, and now we can’t stay. Oh, Osama, would you please grace us with your wisdom and tell us what to do since there are those among us who apparently value your opinion?
Wait, Osama knows that Bush stole the 2000 election:
Since Osama is the expert, we now know the truth!
What is the “plan” that the right so righteously touts as staying until “things are stablized and the Iraqi government can fend for themselves”? Since most of you tout yourselves a “military experts” and those of us who disagree know nothing, what praytell is the actual measuring tool for determining such conditions? One may reasonably argue that things are “stablized” now and the Iraqis already have a government and a military. This statement sounds more like when we get complete control or hell freezes over, whichever comes first.
“Why don t YOU just accept the fact that we aren t going to leave Iraq until things are stabilized and the Iraqi government can fend for themselves.”
Magical thinking. There’s no other term for it. Hopefully we’ll get some realists running the government sooner rather than later. For America’s sake. For the world’s sake.
I used to think we should stay until the country is stabalized, but let’s look at the facts:
“Progress” Made: A school gets painted, 1 (maybe 2) neighborhoods in Baghdad get 8 hours of electricity and water a day, 1 government that can’t get anything done due to sectarian disputes (These are the only bits of “progress” that the ‘pubs can name).
American lives lost: 2500
Iraqi lives lost: tens of thousands
At this rate, by the time “the country is stabalized”, the entire U.S. army and the entire population of Iraq will be dead. Another victory for the U.S.! Hooray!
Five posts in a row, TomY. The ol’ frame approach. When you have lost the intellectual battle, inundate ‘em with BS, call names and change the topic.
Shinseki retired, was not fired. Case closed.
There are differing interpretations of the Snow remarks, even on the left. Dickerson at Slate, for instance, noted the ’soon’ and indicated the remark might be deceptive - but NOT a lie. Regardless, how could you or I or anyone know what Bush was thinking when he said that. After all, if he intentionally lied, one would think it would be about something important. Differing interpretations and once again, no lies, not a single lie documented. Your problem, of course, is your immature insistence upon proving “lie: as opposed to wrong or mistake. But then the latter two don’t fit with a comic-book level understanding of the world and people.
Dugger, Continues his Diogenes-like lonely quest for an intelligent, honest leftist who can document a single real Bush lie.
Dugger continues his Diogenes-like lonely quest for an intelligent, honest leftist who can document a single real Bush lie by reading Bush’s mind. Pathetic.
“Shinseki retired, was not fired. Case closed.”
He was pushed out because he didn’t toe the Rumsfeld line. “Case closed” isn’t an argument.
“how could you or I or anyone know what Bush was thinking when he said that”
Comic-book understanding of the world? You’re the one who’s set up a magical standard for evaluating lies, and who sees himself on a “lonely quest”! And really, “knowing what he was thinking” is your standard? When has any president been subjected to such a humiliatingly, emasculatingly pathetic defense such as that? I assumed you thought better of Bush.
Did Bush know he’d discussed resignation with Snow? Yes. Provably so. And still he told the press he that he had not, instead of evading the question, as a more honorable man might. Are you saying he intended to tell the truth? Please explain how. Sorry, Dugger, it’s a lie no matter how you slice it. He told a lie most likely because he thought doing otherwise would hurt the market — fair enough, but still a lie he thought he was telling for the right reasons. I wonder what other lies he’s told for the “right reasons”?
Oh, here’s one: “We do not torture.”
TomY,
You, NOT I, said fired. FIRED. You were wrong.
And you may not be intelligent enough or calm enough to understand what I’m saying. I actually think Bush has probably lied about some things in his life. But I expect he is no different from most other humans and major politicians who politicize and “rosy outlook” things. But I know the difference between my opinion and a public claim/asssertion - between proof and opinion. I know neither I nor you can prove lie. The real problem is that the left, and you, live in a comic book world where everyone to your right is evil and venal and you are moral and virtuous. You cannot accept the fact that Bush may be merely human and wants to do a good job every bit as much as every other president and is working towards that end. He could be right or wrong. But that doesn’t fit your simplistic view of the world. No. Bush must have an evil gene - evidently- and lies because he likes to lie and be evil. With that kind of closed minded attitude, the only recourse is to insist on sticking to the meaning of words and provison of real proof. As I have said many times, contradictions do not equal lies. Mistatements, misunderstandings, mispeaks are always a possible explanation - for anyone , Bush included.
Dugger, It hasn’t changed. No lie has been documented.
Call me crazy, but I don’t think you need be able to read minds in order to show a lie. All you have to do is prove that the person bore false witness when he knew better. I don’t know how it works for you in your job or home life, but that’s the standard I was raised by, and the one I try to live by. That Bush knew better is uncontested. That he misreported what he knew is uncontested. Please explain how you think he was being honest when he did this, without relying on your fantasyland mind-reading defense (maybe you should try that in court some time, see how it goes).
Bush’s lie about Snow isn’t a big deal to me; it’s just that when I see someone like you, Dugger, who has a superhero fcodpiece fetish about Bush to such a degree that you literally cannot see when the man tells us a bald-faced lie, I feel a civic obligation to expose your magical reasoning. At least you seem to be approaching a view of him as a human politician. Is that a half-admission poking its head out of the groundhog hole? Fundamentally, why is Bush exempted from the general rule that politicians lie? I submit that it is because you have a simplistic, idiotic, Malkinized view of leftists. More on that below.
Your account of my view of Bush is as cartoonish as it gets — so much so, I wonder if you’re inventing it for the sake of argument, because I certainly have never said that he’s evil or that I hate him, though I do hate torture. If you are actually interested in a dialogue, here’s my assessment. I was rooting for him to do well after 9/11, basically up until the run-up to the Iraq war. That’s where I jumped ship. I think he’s narcissistic, inflexible, and on the dumb side; so he was easily persuaded to make a horrible strategic decision because that decision flattered his conception of himself, rather than on the actual merits of the decision. (I think this is also the basic rationale of most war supporters as well). If I had sum up what I most object to about his administration it would be: leading us to failure in Iraq, above all; and civil liberties issues, particularly torture and domestic spying, each of which are a cancer on our democracy.
Tom, it hasn’t changed. Dugger requires an impossible magic standard to be convinced that Bush lied.
Who’s demonizing? I think he’s a bad president and a weak person, not an evil one. I think at minimum he deluded himself about the dangers Saddam presented to us — an “immediate threat” as Rumsfeld called Iraq. But I don’t think they want to do the right thing; I think their number-one goal is to hurt Democrats. The Republicans were an opposition party for so long, they were taken over by their own most propagandistic, extremist, hateful elements, like Limbaugh, Dobson, and Malkin (when’s the last time Cheney’s been on Limbaugh, anyway?) That’s why the “policy debate” over Iraq has turned out to be just another opportunity for Republicans to call liberals traitors and cowards, as it will again as the election nears.
“But the virtually unprovable charge of lie”
Even if I agreed that it was technically unprovable, which I don’t, a person can still recognize times when it is most likely that someone is lying, leaving you defending a distinction without any meaningful difference. “We do not torture,” and the “immediate threat/mushroom cloud” parcel of lies about Saddam’s WMD were thusly recognizable — and if anyone was trying to circumvent debate in this country, it was the Bush adminstration’s dishonest appeal to fear in the runup to Iraq. Sad that you can’t/won’t recognize it, even if the majority of the country, not to mention history, will do so.
Dugger,
You’re right, honest men should be able to disagree. It’s just hard to see the beam in our own eyes sometimes (myself included).
But Murtha’s a “doddering fool?”
Actually, I think their number one goal is to pay back campaign contributors (through tax cuts and business-friendly regulation). Their number two goal is to hurt Democrats. Governing doesn’t really enter the picture, since it’s not really accounted for in the conservative ideology.
What if, as in my case, those lies don’t matter?
What if the Lusitania was sunk with military supplies and ammo on board?* Should we have stayed out of World War I?
What if lend - lease was a sneaky way for FDR to help the British before 1941?*
Should we have left Germany out of war plan?
What if our trade embargoes directed at Japan were viewed as war - like by them?**
Should we have just said “we instigated Pearl Harbor” and done nothing?
Then why do that now?
* It was
** They were
You are all wrong, Tom. I don’t even admire Bush and have strong doubts about Iraq. Have said it here many times - long before you arrived here. I think I understand the Neocon idea behind this war and think its shaky - basically because in my mind Iraq is near feudal and will revert once we leave and another strongman will eventually ‘Darwin’ out. And I believe Bush has probably lied in his life time and probably lied during his presidency - just law of averages- for him or any other president, including the sanctified ones. But the virtually unprovable charge of lie is no substitute for debate and analysis. It is a shortcut around them, in fact. It is also a technique to demonize and suggest to others that debate and thought are not required - after all, the man is a ‘liar’. I don’t see Bush as especially bad, dumb, corrupt, evil or greedy. I also don’t think he is brilliant, certainly not charismatic; he is a poor speaker and not particuarly conservative IMO.
You say you don’t think he is evil, but that he lead us into a war just because it flattered his self image. How about he led into war because he thought it was the right thing to do. How about the political opposition pretty much wants to do the right thing just as much as the other side and that we are all in this together. And that disagreement is fine, but can be accomplished without demonizing the opposition.
Dugger
TomY,
When one says he “lies” as if that is part and parcel of his essential qualities as human being, I consider that demonizing. When a respected mainstream publication says its OK to hate Bush, likewise.
Rumsfeld did not say Iraq was an immediate threat.
Of course, they want to do the right thing and of course they want to prevail over Democrats.
Democrats want to do the right thing and prevail over Republicans.
Both believe their party winning is coincident to doing the rigth thing.
Limbaugh et al are commenters, not eleccted party officials or government members. No more than Michael Moore is on your side.
And OK I agree that many times we ‘think’ a person is lying but can’t prove it. That does not mean we are right. It may mean our own political and emotional prejudices are coloring our judgments. That is why lie has a high standard of proof legally. For instance, you are going to find you are wrong about Rumsfeld and immediate threat (as in Iraq posed an…). I doubt you are lying about that. But I don’t doubt you believe it to be true. Which is the problem then with tossing around ‘lie’
Dugger
Hey, it’s not the first time we’ve been lied into war, and it won’t be the last. Lying us into a war is not the worst thing a president can do. But lying us into a war that a) gains us nothing, and b) we then go on to lose, is pretty good grounds for voting a president and his party out of office. Bad governance is the worst sin for a president, not dishonesty. But the fact that you Malkinites refuse to recognize dishonesty when Bush spits it in your face is a disturbing sign of the times, even so.
Maybe the administration did play fast and loose with the truth because they thought it was in our interest. I can believe that. The problem, though, is that the war has gone badly. Not only has it not gained us any protection, it has cost us dearly in lives, funds, and in prestige and friendship in the Mulsim world and everywhere else. We don’t have to keep losing, though. Bring the troops home now.
The GOP has an entire publishing industry devoted to demonizing Democrats and liberals. Cry me a river.
“Rumsfeld did not say Iraq was an immediate threat.”
I’m sorry to have to correct your ignorance so bluntly.
“No terrorist state poses a greater or more immediate threat to the security of our people and the stability of the world and the regime of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.” - Rumsfeld, 9-19-02
“Some have argued that the nuclear threat from Iraq is not imminent - that Saddam is at least 5-7 years away from having nuclear weapons. I would not be so certain. And we should be just as concerned about the immediate threat from biological weapons. Iraq has these weapons.” - Rumsfeld, 9-18-02
Here’s another fun quote: “This is about imminent threat.” - Scott McClellan, 2-10-03
Since your conservative cocoon has kept you ignorant, here are some other words the Bush administration deployed dishonestly to silence critics and frighten America into this idiotic war: “mortal threat,” “urgent threat,” “immediate threat”, “serious and mounting threat”, “unique threat,” and the claim that Iraq was actively seeking to “strike the United States with weapons of mass destruction.” I await your retraction of your claim that the administration did not characterize Iraq with dramatic, calculated, fearmongering language.
If you support honest debate over foreign policy, then you cannot support these kind of scare tactics. It’s just that simple.
Again, my problem with Bush, however, is less the manner in which he scammed us into this stupid, pointless war. My problem is the fact that we find ourselves in this stupid, pointless war at all.
I have no love for those on the Democratic side who were cowed by the 2003 GOP media machine, or those who continued to believe in the good faith of the administration after Bush kicked out the weapons inspectors. I would tolerate lies or bad information if it had led to good policy, in this case, support of renewed weapons inspections instead of war. Most Democrats you cite would have preferred inspections and containment to war, and they have been proved right. The Republicans, by contrast, preferred war to containment, and have been proved wrong. Are these quotes meant to prove the good faith of both sides? Or the gullibility of one side, and the manipulative nature of the other?
My position is that the war was a bad strategic decision and that it is unwinnable. Bush shit the bed. It does not matter that other people may have applauded his bed-shitting, since he is the one who shit it. All I ask of my representatives now is that they not applaud the continuation of the bed-shitting, and that they admit that it was a bad idea to shit the bed to begin with.
TomY,
Actaully, I will cede that Rummy actually said “immediate threat.”
But note the context of the bigger argument, as to the Admin scaring us into war with lies:
http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031103.html
“I await your retraction of your claim that the administration did not characterize Iraq with dramatic, calculated, fearmongering language.”
Made no such claim. Calculated language yes. Drama maybe. ‘Deliberate’ fearmongering, no.
And how do you explain all of this from your side:
“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 th! e 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 seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
-Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 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 always 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.”
-Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
“[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 is miscalculating America’s response to his 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
Dugger
Anway, the only real Bush lie that really, truly angers me — even more than his playing fast and loose with the facts on Iraqi WMDs — is on torture. Bush’s torture policy is the least moral act by any American president since Nixon. I still can barely believe it sometimes.
Case in point: Ron Suskin writes how George Bush acknowledged the methods of torture for Zubaydah: “Do some of these harsh methods really work?”
Looks like Bush is a liar. But even worse, he’s a torturer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/19/AR2006061901211_pf.html
In the spirit of my last wholly ignored post, here’s another story on Bush’s trashing the CIA and pissing on those who don’t play the game.
And Dugger, you do see the irony in posting an enormous list of Democrats talking sh*t but ignoring similar quotes (and worse, as in, actually starting a war) by Republicans in a thread that originally was about conservative exceptionalism (focusing on Murtha’s remarks about Somalia, remember). I&#