Now that Bush has confirmed he lied, does this give pro war Dems an out?

[59millionmorons]

Won't they now just say they were lied to by the pResident and if they would have known he was a liar they would not of voted for the war? Especially those who are running in 2004.

[displacedtexan]

1. yes, if hillary speaks out...

hillary had to vote for the * war powers crap because the big dog had operated under the premise that saddam was a threat.

but,now that the forgery and other lies are beginning to leak, hillary can truthfully claim that she was led to believe that * had NEW INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

when she speaks up and points out the glaring difference between the iraq policies of * and bill, she will send a signal to other dems to follow suit and cry foul.

[bryant69]

3. If i were a candidate

I wouldn't wait. I mean there is a clinton legacy, but it is clearly a mixed blessing. Coming out ahead of Hillary would make that candidate (Kerry Grahm or Edwards) look independent from the Clintons, which is probably something they'd like.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[blm]

49. Hillary and Kerry were on the same page in their

floor speeches. It sounded to me back then like they were boxing Bush in with his promise to go to the UN with evidence. It's these Senators who HAVE the leverage to go after Bush on this .

Here's part of what Kerry said that day:

>>>>
Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections.
In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.
And in voting to grant the President the authority to use force, I am not giving him carte blanche to run roughshod over every country that poses - or may pose - a potential threat to the United States. Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test.
Yes, it is grave because of the deadliness of Saddam Hussein's arsenal and the very high probability that he will use these weapons one day if he is not disarmed. But it is not imminent. None of our intelligence reports suggest that Saddam Hussein is about to launch any kind of attack against us or countries in the region.
The argument for going to war against Iraq is rooted in enforcement of the international community's demand that Iraq disarm. It is not rooted in the doctrine of preemption.
Nor is the grant of authority in this resolution an acknowledgment that Congress accepts or agrees with the President's new strategic doctrine of preemption. Just the opposite.
This resolution clearly limits the authority given to the President to use force in Iraq, and only Iraq, and for the specific purpose of defending the United States against the threat posed by Iraq "and" enforcing relevant Security Council resolutions.
>>>>>>>>>

[jcgadfly]

2. Perhaps

The problem I can see is that many of them have said they distrusted Bush earlier and knew that he was a foreign policy disaster waiting to happen. It would be hard to claim that they were lied to after those earlier comments.

[Dr Fate]

5. No, that will be an easily believed claim...

...regardless of the facts, the "MURCKAN" mind set will play in our favor on this one. Most Murckans DO believe that we "should" be able to trust the President, and so your average voter (regardless of the facts) will give them a pass on "trusting the President", just as most of them did.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. Absolutely correct

Most Americans DO believe that we "should" be able to trust the President.

[jcgadfly]

30. That's a trap I don't want to fall into

The "Murckan people" believe that the Congress should be able to trust the President. They also believe that the President should be able to trust his advisors amd his advisors should be able to trust the information they receive, and so on, ad infinitum.

The buck won't stop with Bush and "Murcka" will be happy to pass it around.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

33. the buck WILL stop with governor Bush

he's a "cowboy" donch'a know? He's a REAL MAN! He can even eat a pretzel and ride a Segway AT THE SAME TIME!!!!

[Dr Fate]

34. So what would you like to see as a result? DEMS losing seats in 2004?

At this point, I'd rather see DEMS "have it both ways" than see a Republican victory in 2004.

[jcgadfly]

51. I'd like to see the Democrats have it both ways for once as well

I'm just saying that I don't see the American people turning on Bush for his lies. They will believe the spin that good Christian people were misinformed and the story will disappear from the media as another crisis du jour will replace it.

I'm sorry for being pessimistic but that's what I see.

[Dr Fate]

79. They will turn on him unless troops stop dying.

n/t

[jcgadfly]

87. Over 70 people have died since...

Bush stood in front of the "Mission Accomplished" banner.

He still has a 60% approval rating. They're not turning on him any time soon.

[Dr Fate]

91. Wait until 70 more die...

...and the DEM presidential candidates start turning up the heat.

The question on everyone's lips will be "What are we dying for"- and they will require an answer.

[Pastiche423]

94. And an answer will be required

as to why did you vote for the slaughter?

[polpilot]

4. 'If they had known he was a liar'...EVERYONE knows he's a liar...hardly

an excuse for voting for the war. "I'm sorry it's just that I'm easily led" is hardly the mark of a mature leader.

Dean '04...

[Dr Fate]

7. But the average Murckan is not a political junkie...

...and most Murckans believe that we "should" be able to trust the president. Since most Americans believed Bush's lies, it's not a stretch for DEMS to say they did too.

Remember- If "somthing" had been found in Iraq, all the forged documents in the World would not have saved anti-war DEMS.

They ARE trying to "have it both ways"- and I'm not so sure that it's a bad strategy.

[Nashyra]

54. How do you know what Dean would have voted if he were an

elected official? All this hammering of the Dems who voted for the resolution while they were in office and comparing them to candidates who did not hold public office when the vote to give * was presented is like comparing apples and oranges, we at DU witness how stupid and gullible the American people can be, imagine trying to hold onto a Dem seat with the media against you. Politics is politics and in my opinion many are just trying to hang on to their Dem seats anyway they can, no matter what we think, 9-11 did change everything and it something that can not be changed overnight, * is a mother &*^%$r and there is no question about that, but we Dems have to remember that our base is very broad and not as deep as the RW, we appeal to more people and the very nature of our party is more tolerant, our candidates risk more than their political futures, they risk losing our Dem seats to the very well financed, deep rooted RW by being too one demisional these are fundamental differences of the parties. A Dem candidate in any race, local, state or federal has to appeal to a wider base than any Repug candidate who can win on lower taxes and no gun control that's why * got as many votes as he did, he appealed to the masses, lying through his teeth and having the mighty corporate media pave the way for him and he still lost. Let's stay on tract and stop beating up on the Dems in office, I'm not for blind loyalty but think some of these post's through and look at the big picture, the goal is to get rid of the * cabal and that means Tom Delay also, we have to appeal to the moderates whether we like it or not if we are to have a chance of taking back the WH, Senate or House and then we can go in and wax their clocks.

[DUreader]

6. They need to answer the same questions, "What did they know and when.."

They were briefed

Did they get the info on the doubts about the Intel?


Which of them got that info?

Did they pass it on to others?

Start with the ones on the Committees responsible for getting this

info.

Were they actively prevented from doing their jobs or did they

just not ask the right questions and abdicate their responsibilities?



edit for spelling

[Dr Fate]

11. Now THIS I am for...

...yes- lets put Bush "under oath" and so we can see who was lying to who and what information they gave to the DEMS. Good point.

[loyalsister]

15. Those are VERY fair questions

and I would very much like to know the answers. Thank you for calling my attention to it.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. My recommendation to the "Blair Democrats"

First, each should admit to having been wrong about the war. Admit that there was no real justification for the invasion. Each should make an angry speech expressing outrage at having been misled by the junta. Not only were they misled, but all members of Congress and the American people who relied on the administration to inform them of threats from foreign enemies were misled. Call for a full investigation and demand that those who deliberatly misled the nation resign from office.

Next, each should attack the junta for it mishandling of the war on terror. Pledge that, if elected, the target of the fight against terrorism will be identifiable individuals and organizations that have committed specific crimes. Pledge that the desire to bring terrorists to justice will not be used to justify nefarious and dubious foreign adventures, like the invasion of Iraq, that in fact have nothing to do with US security or the fight against terrorists.

Finally, each should pledge to review the draconian measures pushed by the junta, such as restrictions on civil liberties. It would be most desirable to suggest very strongly that the USA PATRIOT and Homeland Security Acts be repealed; in any event, any attempts to further errode civil liberties should be denounced.

[HFishbine]

40. Most Excellent JackRabbit

Very well said! How does this turn into action though? It's one of my laments about the great ideas that ferment on this board. You, I and the fifty or so other people who correspond here may be enlightened, but how does this translate into getting the people you are calling upon to act?

Letters to my senator, a presidential candidate, have never been acknowledged (although my republican congressman always sends a snail-mail reply at least acknowledging receipt).

[tomp]

60. add to that the demand for a complete investigation of 9/11...

...and the energy task force, without the stonewalling, and throw in the theft 2000 and enron.

i want a candidate who will promise to pursue legal action to the max with no pardons.

i want a candidate who is wholly committed to explaining to the american people what went wrong with bush.

of course, i'm not going to hold my breath waiting for any of this from the dems.

[Jack Rabbit]

88. Response

The energy task force, the 2000 election theft in Florida, Enron, and (if I may add) the manipulation of the energy market in California are matters that need to be looked into and criminal charges filed. The September 11 matter should also be examined, but I doubt there will be the kind of revelations there that some here might believe. I have been going forward with my personal letter writing and other activities on the assumption that the attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden and his associates.

In any event, the assertion that Iraq was invaded because Saddam possessed a banned arsenal or even that the consensus within the junta believed that to be the case is no longer a tenable. For a Democratic presidential candidate to continue to support this assertion is simply irresponsible.

What I laid out in post no. 8 is the best course I can think of for those Democrats who backed Bush's action up to now. Is it really a good course? I have my doubts about that. I spent the winter participating in peace demonstrations. I and many others did not buy the junta's line. My thoughts on the war were expressed in February in
this article on DU. I consider the views I expressed in that piece to have been informed opinion. Granted, the sources of my information went beyond the mainstream American media. Nevertheless, there isn't a great deal in that piece I need to revise to fit the facts as we now know them. Can the press agents on Downing Street and in the White House make that statement? No.

The fact is that the information that supported the opinion that the war was based on lies was available to those who sought it. Those of us who turned off the television and got our news on the Internet from the British press, alternative sources like Pacifica radio and fringe sources like Salon.com and The Nation had a better idea of what was happening than those who followed events on CNN and in The New York Times. We are not surprised at the revelations this week of Joseph Wilson and Terrence Wilkinson.

Nevertheless, it is entirely possible that one of the pro-war Democrats will be chosen to oppose Bush next year. Bush presents a national emergency; he is a threat to American democratic institutions and must be removed from office. Consequently, I would like to support the Democratic nominee wholeheartedly. For a pro-war Democrat to admit now that the junta's justification of the war was a pack of lies will make that a lot easier.

[dfong63]

99. well said

clap, clap, clap.

[CWebster]

9. Only one problem

there was no secret that it was all based on lies.

[Dr Fate]

17. No, it was a "secret"

Ask everyone at your workplace right now if they had ever heard of them before the war. Most of them wont even know about them in the now.

Those documents wouldnt have meant squat if "conventional wisdom" had turned out to be correct and we had found "somthing."

Hell- how many DUers were 100% certain that ZERO weapons would be found? I wasnt.

[LynneSin]

10. The Lie Bush said was two-fold

It was more than just the forged evidence presented to congress in order to justify the war (which in all fairness, had it been real we would be the ones backtracking - but I suppose we just knew better all along).

Bush also promised that we would work with the UN, that was the basis for last October's vote.

So for many democrat's, they justified their votes because they felt that Bush had the evidence and was going to present it to the UN and work with the UN to deal with Iraq. To be honest, it almost seems like a legit reason.

I can't write off every senator that voted "yes" back in October because I look at the big picture. Many of those senators that voted "yes" have also been our strongest supporters in the filibuster, staunch supporters against the tax cuts and champions of the environment. I would be crazy to toss a senator like that out the door when he/she is supportive of so many important issues.

Personally we need to write to our papers and call into talk shows and make this an issue. Bush lied, not once but twice now. If lying about sex is the impeachment ruler, these lies go off the scale!!!

[Dr Fate]

13. Do you have a link handy...

...outlining Bush's promise to go through he UN?

[robbedvoter]

12. Harkin said back in April that they were lied to - and his vote

would have been different had he known the truth. (He's OK with me). Kerry said during his campaign that they were all lied to, but said nothing about his vote - in fact I think he still defends it (and now wants to escalate W's war - hello, Mr Johnson!)
I'd be very happy to hear a Harken statement from Hillary and others - but it ain't coming.
It would sound strange from Lieberman who was just quoted Monday as saying that "opposing war and tax cuts leads the dem party nowhere"

[loyalsister]

14. Could it be?

that some sincerely believed him? Come on people! Is it not possible that in their every day work, our congresspeople and senators are not perpetually cynical. Why is it so ridiculous to believe that they are people trying to get along with others that they don't necessarily consider demons from hell, despite a strong dislike for their positions, and get a job done well? I know the concept that they aren't constantly shooting darts with their eyes at every glance and using every intimidation tactic in the book is disheartening, but this is a work environment.
The fact is, following an actual attack they were given this song and dance. They trusted a guy who they were confident was telling them the truth. Honestly, who would think that he would have the nerve to tell a lie this serious? It really doesn't make a lot of sense in a lot of ways. That kind of hubris does go almost beyond absurdity.
I think that they did fall for faulty evidence. I still don't agree with any of the reasoning offered evidence aside, however I am going to cut them slack on believing what * told them.
It's real easy to sit back and say but I knew it was BS way back when when you don't have the responsibility of protecting the citizens of the country on your shoulders.

[Dr Fate]

16. Well, perhaps, but the larger thing to rember is...

...that even if DEMS were aware of forged documents- those documents would have been WORTHLESS political capital if we had found "somthing" in Iraq.

All the forged documents in the world would not have saved the DEMS who "Trusted Saddam, and did not believe our President about the weapons that we found- the weapons that Saddam was about to attack America with."

[Terwilliger]

19. WOOPS

that argument is over...anything else?

How about...Dems knew there were no WMD's...Dems knew Bush was a liar and most likely lying...Dems KNEW that 9/11 fear was still gripping the country...

IOW, Dems should have done what they were SUPPOSED to do, and oppose the murderous madman George Bush. "Blair" Dems can't wiggle out of this, because MANY in the House and Senate voted NO.

[Dr Fate]

37. But most DEMS did truly believe Saddam had "somthing"

And NONE of them (or most DUers) were 100% sure that Saddam did NOT need to be disarmed.

That's why they supported dealing with Saddam through the UN, if they were shown he was a threat..

The topicv of this thread deals specifically with the Niger forgeries- which are only an issue NOW- after the fact that we all now know that "conventional wisdom" was flat out wrong.

What is your ultimate goal- to remove all these DEMS from congress and replace thm with..umm..well..Republicans? Must be, because I dont even know who the "alternative" candidates are, much less how they plan on winning any races.

Be constructive- tell us who we can replace some of these "corrupt" DEMS with- name names, states and strategies, please.

[Terwilliger]

43. and that excuses them for their lies

I love it "THERES NOBODY TO VOTE FOR...VOTE DEM" Such a wonderful attitude from someone who advocates local grassroots efforts.

No matter what other spin you want to put on it, the Democratic party should have stood up and said no to Bush. Excuses may abound, but that doesn't excuse it. The Democrats who voted NO apparently KNEW what they were talking about. The others either, didn't know, which makes them incompetent, or they DID know which makes them cowardly traitors.

[Dr Fate]

48. Prove that DEMS lied, or is someone else doing the lying?

As far as I can tell, Bush is the one doing the lying. Most DEMS, DUers and Americans believed that Saddam had "somthing", needed to be "disarmed" and was a "threat"...the disgreement was over HOW we "dealt" with Saddam.

So your suggestion that DEMS were doing the lying about Iraq is false, unless you can show me some evidence.

I noticed you refused to answer my question about our "alternatives" to these DEMS who believed Saddam may have had weapons.

Let's here about them- perhaps they ARE better than DEMS- who are they, what states are they running in, and what are their strategies? This IS a hard-politics site isnt it?

[Terwilliger]

55. I know...you always want answers on who to vote for

sounds like you cant figure it out for yourself.

You're glossing over my point and talking about me not answering your question?

Most DEMS, DUers and Americans believed that Saddam had "somthing", needed to be "disarmed" and was a "threat"

prove THAT

Most DUers knew Bush was a liar and was lying. Dems SHOULD have known...thats what they get the big bucks for.

Saddam had no weapons (we knew that in 1998 when Clinton pulled the inpectors out) Saddam was NO threat and EVERYBODY knew that. He can't be disarmed when he has no wqeapons, and he can't be invaded when there is no threat.

Again, I see you wanting to excuse and forgive Dems...but they should be voted out for their lack of ability.

[Dr Fate]

62. So if DEMS are not lying, then that means you are lying then-right?

...not meant to be a personal attack- but you accuse DEMS of lying about WMDs- I thought that was Bush, but I'll keep an open mind if you can prove it- either prove it or admit you are lying to smear DEMS.

And BTW- I do know who to vote for- but you keep telling me they are "with Bush"- lets say I believe you- in that case who SHOULD I vote for? Please give names and what states they are from. Here is your big chance to showcase those benevolent "alternatives" to these "lying" DEMS.

[Dr Fate]

66. You say about DEMS: "they should be voted out "

I know that you have thought this through- so tell me WHO will replace these DEMS that we need to vote out.

Lets do some HARD politics, not just breezey philosphy- WHO are these candidates, WHERE are they from, WHAT are they running for, HOW many votes can they deliver, etc.

If you are going to tear down the DEMS, you damn well better have an "alternative" plan. I'm all ears baby!

[chadm]

93. exactly

draftnader2004.com

[unfrigginreal]

18. An Out?

So, I guess we should put the whole of Congress on trial for War Crimes?

Give me a break...are you REALLY a Democrat? Would you prefer that all of those that voted yes in the Congress lose their seats? What EXACTLY is it that you want?

People Fuck Up, ie your post, we don't need to automatically hang them for it.

[CWebster]

20. Hmmm

Bush fucked up?

[unfrigginreal]

26. mmmm hmmm

And he should be hanged! LOL

[Terwilliger]

22. Many Democrats voted NO

I guess they knew something the other Dems didn't know? :shrug:

[59millionmorons]

98. chuckle chuckle

Great a person with 21 post questioning my Democratic values. Have you noticed the form of the original message was in question form. Get some more post before you question my loyalty.

[DrGonzoLives]

21. Yep

And, hopefully, it means a mound of ammunition to use in 2004, if they're not too spineless to leave it laying around.

[Terwilliger]

23. yep?

how so? Do we consider pro-war Dems "useful idiots"?

I thought it was their job to question the actions of the president, and their job to know better when they're being lied to.

[DrGonzoLives]

25. I didn't comment on the morality

just that it did provide an out for them to use. It's up to you whether you believe it or not.

[nolabels]

27. Why stop at the congress

With requests going as high as 500 to 1 by their constituents against it, they voted for it. This should have been front page to the back page and covered in every newspaper in print, on the television and radio at a constant and any other kind of mass communication apparatus.

I will not be doing any apologizing for anybody on this subject. So now the forth estate says that their was one lie that went out. That's just more bullshit, the whole the thing was a lie from way before the start. * would like to say it’s finished, but nobody can say to finish, because its still going on and still a long way from the end of anything.

Going to the corporate press for any interpretation of what is happening is like reading the bible to see if the Pope died. The only connections is that it seems to be on the same subject If you want to find out any of the truth your going to have to spend a lot of time online surfing the net, because the people that should be showing everybody what is really going on are doing the exact opposite. Will some people please get a clue already?

[unfrigginreal]

28. What are you talking about?

With requests going as high as 500 to 1 by their constituents against it, they voted for it.

Not trying to be smart but I don't understand what you are referring to.

[jcgadfly]

31. There was a massive phone, fax and email blitz...

while the war resolution was being debated. Congressional and Senatorial phone banks, email accounts and fax machines were swamped with the volume. Most chose to disregard the groundswell.

[unfrigginreal]

38. I'm a hardhead

How does this calculate to 500-1?

[Terwilliger]

46. There was unprecedented turnout from the electorate

People called, faxed, visited....anything they could to tell these people to oppse Bush and an unjust, illegal, and immoral war.

Nancy Pelosi, when asked about the anti-war sentiment later on said "Well, we didn't know how anyone felt...maybe those people should have gone into the streets earlier"

WE WERE THERE NANCY! YOU DROPPED THE BALL!

[unfrigginreal]

53. I don't doubt the enthusiasm

Where do you get the 500-1 number from? I'd just like to add that I was one of the "500" but I never felt as though most of the American public agreed with me.

[Terwilliger]

56. where were you looking for common ground...mainstream media?

I guess you just couldn't find anyone who was vocal about it.

[unfrigginreal]

59. Yeah, right terwilliger

and there's no difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

[nolabels]

58. There were blurbs by staffers at congressional offices to that point

Spent a few minutes on google trying find something on it but seeing how its mostly reflects comercial media kind of hard to find.

Anybody else have any links?

Did find this if you needed to read something though

http://old.fairfieldweekly.com/articles/americaspeaks.html

(snip)
The largest anti-war protest since Vietnam fails to make front page news. Organizers scratch their heads.
By Mike Sembos

At 11:30pm on the night of Friday, Oct. 25, a couple hundred Yale students gathered near the New Haven green along with a handful of other Connecticut residents who needed to bum a ride. They were all heading down to Washington, D.C., and to show their opposition to the imminent attack on Iraq. The protest scheduled for the following day was organized to coincide with dozens of protests worldwide on the one-year anniversary of Bush's signing of the USA PATRIOT Act, the bill that raped our political freedoms in the name of national security. Those who showed up believed that it would be so incredibly asinine for the United States to preemptively and illegally attack Iraq that they were willing to sacrifice their well-deserved weekend to spend 15 hours (roundtrip) on a cramped bus just to be able to walk by the President's house and tell him what they thought.
(snip)

A large group of people could probably spend a couple months categorizing points of opposition and articles on the web, and so I guess this just goes to show some people do live under a rock.

on edit: Here is a good link http://www.antiwar.com/

and another article
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Jul/07062003/commenta/72646.asp
(snip)
News media abandon historic role -- and public suffers
By Danny Schechter Special to Newsday

Millions of Americans accept what they are told and think they understand what they see. And what they are told and what they see is most often news as a manipulated commodity. But the facts that really count rarely reach a significant number of the public's ears or eyes. (snip)

[bowens43]

29. Bush didn't confirm that he lied.

He said that he was given false information, that's not admitting that he lied. He did nothing but pass the blame for his misdeeds on to others.

[Classical_Liberal]

35. He spoke lies whether he knew it or not

he should have known.

[59millionmorons]

71. Yes but

We are used to his child like pass the buck routine, look how many times he blames Clinton for his own poor economy. He is like clockwork.

[Classical_Liberal]

32. has anyone actually used the word "lie"

?

[karlschneider]

36. Not yet, they're too worried that some WMD will be found and that the

public will largely accept it as vindication for the liars.
:grr:
I think the qWagmire will make it a more attractive option in a few months though.

[Dr Fate]

39. What if they do find "somthing"???

Then those forged Documents will mean NOTHING to the average national security-concerned voter.

[Classical_Liberal]

41. If they are found, they will be in another country

which would have happened on Bush's watch. Then Bush is a bungler! Then you have to ask why the weren't used? Then why would Saddam give them to Al Qaeda who are his enemies. It isn't the end of the world. There is so much shit we could throw at Bush, if we had the spine, it isn't even funny!

[Dr Fate]

42. What media outlets are poised to help DEMS spread this message?

Republicans/media could EASILY spin that into "See- we told you that Saddam was working with terrorists."

[Classical_Liberal]

50. When Daschle looked a little like he was going to challenge

the resolution he was the lead story on every network. The media is attracted to drama. Look at the Texas Dems for examples, not Daschle. More of the same has gotten us nowhere. The democrats remind me of George McClellan on the Penisular campaign.

[Dr Fate]

64. I agree with that...

...DEMS DO need to figure out how to "play" the media as you suggest.

[nolabels]

63. Mr. William Pitt has already looked that up for you

See thread with title "Do We Have These Bastards Cornered? "

[phillybri]

44. Kerry will probably take this angle....

When he came out and said that * "misled" the American people, he specifically stated that he voted for the Iraq war based on the Niger-Iraq connection...

[Terwilliger]

47. I think he'll say "get over it"

[Dr Fate]

52. Besides being opposed to Democrats, what do you base this on?

That Kerry will back down over the Niger forgeries?

Is it just your gut instinct, or are you basing this on his previous actions- be specific- a link would be great too- as DU should also be about education and facts, not just anti-DEM propaganda pot-shots.

[Terwilliger]

57. I dont need to propagandize...Dems shoot themselves often enough

The proof is in the pudding. The Dems have backed down repeatedly and you ask me what I base that idea on?! Are you nutty?

Kerry backed down and wanted to give Bush his authority to go it alone in an action that was most likely immoral and unjust BEFORE the war res vote. HOPING, PRAYING, WISHING that there would be WMD's so that they wouldn't look so heinously incompetent is truly sad, and wholly criminal.

[Dr Fate]

69. Not a personal attack, but are you lying AGAIN?

You said:

"Kerry backed down and wanted to give Bush his authority to go it alone..."

I gave you an oppurtunty to educate people about your cause and provide links to back up your assertions- can you back up this "Kerry wanted to give Bush his authority to go it alone..."

My understanding is that Kerry has always been for international cooperation, and it was BUSh who promised to lawfully go through the UN.

Either prove that Kerry is a unilateralist, like you claim, or admit you are lying in order to smear your enemies, the DEMS.

Surely you can find one statement where Kerry says he is for going it alone w/o alliances- Produce it or come clean.

[tomp]

61. he very weell may take that angle...

...but as i understand it, that "evidence" was publicly debunked well before the vote on iraq.

he can take that approach but we shouldn't pretend it's honest.

[Dr Fate]

72. "publically" debunked? Then how come no one knew about it?

I would have never heard about those documents had it not been for the internet.

I disagree-beforehand DEM knowledge of those documents does not matter-Most Murckans think this is a brand-new story- in other words, the media/GOP snow job is backfiring- remember the nation wide "conventional wisdom" that Saddam had "somthing"- forged documents or not?

Hell- put the DEMS under oath and ask them if they knew about them, and what Bush said about them. So long as Chimpy does it too- DEMS will come out smelling like a rose- the public perception would be "all they did was to trust Bush instead of Saddam, just like me."

[theboss]

45. I don't think they can back off now

I don't see how you can suddenly change your vote on a war when - from the American perspective - the war was a huge success. (I'm ignorning the rebuidling fiasco since this is a seperate issue entirely). The war was quick, civilian deaths were low for such and action, and we lost very few soldiers during the war. And Hussein was a "Bad" person. If you flip-flop now, you are a waffler and you want Hussein to still be "murdering" his people. Besides, it's way too easy for Bush to pass the buck to his intelligence team. If he fires one or two people, this probably becomes a non-issue.

The way to handle this issue is to poke holes into the concept of "the adults being in charge." You say this issue was bungled from the beginning and it was only through the tremendous abilities of our military (built by Clinton I may add) that we still have control of the situation. Bush has badly managed our intelligence aparatus, his security team does not communicate well, and they have totally botched the rebuilding effort by putting too few troops on the ground.

I know this is going to anger people here, but the way to beat Bush on Iraq is to run to the RIGHT of him. Call for more troops in Iraq now (not to bring them home) and call for a massive overhaul of the intelligence community. Demand that heads roll. Make Bush look soft and disinterested.

If you pull back the mask, I may be Dick Morris. And, yes, I feel dirty about that.

[CWebster]

65. Outed Dems

"Washington is awash in prewar quotations, with Democrats avidly taking inventory of the Bush administration's most dubious pronouncements about Iraq's weapons programs. But not all of the most interesting, now seemingly exaggerated, claims are getting attention. For instance, one high government official confidently asserted last October, "We know that has chemical and biological weapons." A leading hawk argued that Saddam "has large and growing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons," including "mustard gas, VX nerve agent, and a range of other chemical weapons." Another official maintained, "e know that he continues to develop weapons of mass destruction , including nuclear devices; and he may soon have the ability to use nuclear weapons against other nations." Commenting on Iraq's biological weapons program, yet another official said, "Most elements of the program are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war." Who are these mysterious hawks whose prewar analyses of Iraq's WMD capabilities now seem so overblown? John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Dick Gephardt, and John Kerry. And their past statements are one reason that most of the Democrats running for president are still only tiptoeing around the issue of the missing WMD."



http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030623&s=lizza062303

[blue america]

67. That's a very slippery slope

And it may make them look like opportunists. I mean, let's face it, many of us will be voting for whoever gets the nomination, so what really matters is the public perception, for the independents and possible cross-overs. To vote "YEA" when the war was popular but then turn around and say "NO" when the popularity is not there doesn't look good.

[Cocoa]

68. the pro-war dems should hold their ground

Attack Bush forcefully for his lies and at the same time stand behind their vote for the resolution.

They should also keep hammering on the failed diplomacy and the poor planning, both of which are very obvious failures.

[Dr Fate]

70. But Cocoa- that would strenghten DEMS and weaken Republicans!!!

DU is about tearing down DEMS and replacing them with un-named, phantom "alternative" candidates- didnt you know that?

[primavera]

90. Huh?

How does it strengthen Dems and weaken Republicans to chastise the administration for lying through it's teeth while simlutaneously applauding the policies based on those lies? Let me see if I get this straight: "The shrub shouldn't have used lies to convince us to shoot someone who subsequently turned out to be innocent, but it's still a really good thing we shot an innocent man because, um... what was our justification again?" Excuse me, but doesn't that just make us look even more like idiots?

[Dr Fate]

92. Sorry friend- private joke- I was being sarcastic....

read my other posts if you want to know my stance...

[nolabels]

75. Does there need to a coherent pattern or just a little confusion?

http://home.twcny.rr.com/felicity/bushisms.htm

- George Dubya Bushisms -

Screw the country, screw the planet,
and screw the English language.

(snip)
"I mean, there needs to be a wholesale effort against racial profiling, which is illiterate children." - 10/11/00

"I know the human being and fish can coexist peacefully." - 9/29/00

"I will have a foreign-handed foreign policy." - 9/27/00

"The woman who knew that I had dyslexia--I never interviewed her." - 9/15/00

"I don't need to be subliminabable" - 9/12/00

"We cannot let terriers and rogue nations hold this nation hostile" - 9/9/00

"I do know I'm ready for the job. And, if not, that's just the way it goes." - 8/21/00

"Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" - 1/11/00

"I think we ought to raise the age at which juveniles can have a gun."

"If most of the breaks go to wealthy people it's because most of the people who pay taxes are wealthy."

"I understand small business growth. I was one."

Bushisms are updated frequently. Check back for what will surely be many more in the four excruciating years of his illegitimate residency.
(snip)

[Pastiche423]

73. Does this give pro war Dems an out?

No.

I watched the Senate every day six weeks prior to the war rag vote and up until every vote was counted. Many Senators spoke of the tens of thousands of emails they received on a daily basis against the invasion. They spoke of their fax machines being jammed because of the amount of people faxing their pleas to vote no on the war rag. Many had to hire temps to answer phone calls from constinuents demanding they vote NO!

Millions of Americans took to the streets to protest the invasion. Tens of millions of people all over the world took to the streets to protest the invasion.

And some think the Dems din't know or din't strongly suspect * was lying?

Bullshit.

IMHO, the Dems that voted for this horrific slaughter were either stupid or too afraid of losing their jobs.

These are the kind of Dems you want representing you?

[Dr Fate]

74. Bush lied, not the DEMS.

Bush is the one who needs an "out" as far as public perception goes- not the DEMS who "trusted Bush instead of Saddam."

We forget that DU opinions and public perception are vastly different. The average American trusted Bush- they are not going to be against DEMS who also appeared to trust him.

[CWebster]

76. Works everytime?

Whore yourself out to win short term popularity contests, according to the Right's playbook--even though the fax machines and e-mails are jammed with your constituient's protests, only to lose the long-term respect of your base and all of your damn principles in the process?

No, support those who stood up and demonstrated leadership ability when it counted, not when it was popular--and don't expect your base to have the same conveniently selective memories that insiders hone to peddle their oily jargon with confidence.

[Dr Fate]

80. No, I'm up for supporting this "alternative" candidate that you speak of..

...instead of these DEM "whores"- I just dont know their names, where they are from, what they are running for, or how many votes they can deliver.

Care to fill me in?- I would much rather vote for one of these stainless, benevolent "alternative" candidates that I keep hearing whispers of, rather than these "lying", "whore" DEMS- I just dont know who they are are what their strategy is. Care to fill me in?

[CWebster]

81. Kuchinich or Dean,

huh?

[Dr Fate]

83. DAMN STRAIGHT I support Dean & Dennis!!!!

You will never hear me say a bad thing about them until after 2004. If they are nominated I will GLADLY give them whatever financial and physical support I can offer.

[Pastiche423]

78. Who said the Dems lied?

Please provide a link that proves that "We forget that DU opinions and public perception are vastly different."

I did not find that to be true in my small town, or many other cities in my state. Many of the people I protested w/din't own a computer and had never heard of DU.

The average Dem trusted *? lol! Where did you get that from? Online polls?

Besides, this thread is about the Dems that voted for the war rag, not the "average" Dem. It is their job to listen to their constintuents and represent them. I am proud to say that my Representative, Pete DeFazio and my Dem Senator, Ron Wyden listened to Oregonians and voted against the war rag. DeFazio was up for re-election, yet he listened. Not only did he listen, but he sent emails and snail mail letters explaining why he voted no.

I call that integrity and standing up for what you think is right. It's too bad other Dems are too afraid to do the same.

One question, Dr Fate, did you watch and of the Senate and/or House sessions prior to the war rag vote?

[Dr Fate]

82. You want a link that proves the DU opinion is not the same as the publics?

Funny- but that's not the same as me asking DUers to back up specific allegations against DEM candidates.

I'm glad you know lots of people who get Alternative media sources from the Web or wherever- I dont know too many folks, outside of hard-core DEMS and greens who do this. No one at my work place or that I talk to at the bar knew anything about these Niger documents before the war- they think this is a "new" story-IF they even know about it now.

The Average DEM trusted Bush? I never said that-I said that this could wind up being the perception. I suggested that this would be the public perception- DEMs dont need a "way out"- they are not the ones that Lied- the perception could be that they were taking the word of the president.

Why use this oppurtunity to tear Down DEMS, especially when we have no one ready to replace them for 2004??-2008, perhaps- we shall see. I say we use this issue to bring down the LIAR, Bush, not DEMS.

[Pastiche423]

86. No, the Dems din't lie

they just apparently believed *'s lie. They voted against their constintuency, when they voted for *'s war rag.

The perception is that they were too afraid and/or stupid to vote for this horrific slaughter. A "way out" might(???) be to apologize for their ignorance and cowardess.

The Dems that voted for the rag, should be confronted. I am so fucking sick of panty waisted, ass kissing, pink tutu-ed (god, I hate that word now) Dems!

Either they are the oppostiton party and represent their constintuents, or fucking leave office.

I am not a Dem for shits and giggles and neither should my reps be.

[Dr Fate]

89. I respect/somewhat agree with all of your points, except #2.

Like it or not, that will never be the public perception. It may be your perception and a handful of other people who stay aware, but not the average Joe-voter.

The perception will be that they "trusted Bush instead of Saddam, just like me." For once, American ignorance will benifit DEMS this time around.

I find it hard to disagree with a lot of your points though- I just think those things will be better taken care of AFTER 2004- in an atmosphere where we hold the cards. In short, I would rather use this issue to tear down Bush, who lied, not DEMS. Reforming the party works best from a position of power, rather than under 4 more years of the LIAR.

[ElementaryPenguin]

77. Yes, and it gives them a valid reason to continually call * a liar!!!

A warmonger, and a war criminal!!!

[jiacinto]

84. It wouldn't please people at DU

But I do think it does give them out. They can say they were misled.

[Dr Fate]

85. They dont even need an "out"- THEY did not LIE- BUSH DID!!!

Why do DEMS need an "out" for Bush's lies?

Hey, I would be all for putting DEMS "under oath" about the Niger documents, so long as they do it to Bush too. It would not harm DEM credibility one bit- "we trusted our president, we made a mistake"- that's all they have to say.

The folks who think the public will turn on DEMS over Bush's deceptions are thinking backwards, not forward- to victory against Bush in 2004.

[primavera]

95. And it was their job to question the shrub

If I tell you that the ghost of Elvis was sighted onboard a UFO flying over the Bermuda Triangle and I know this for a fact because I read about it in the National Enquirer and you decide to base your policies upon my "intelligence," do you still deserve to keep your job? Or have you demonstrated that you are either too stupid or too spineless to retain the public's trust?

[nolabels]

96. The same reason the Press does

On the Decay of the Art of Lying
By Mark Twain

(snip)

Among other common lies, we have the silent lie, -- the deception which one conveys by simply keeping still and concealing the truth. Many obstinate truth-mongers indulge in this dissipation, imagining that if they speak no lie, they lie not at all. In that far country where I once lived, there was a lovely spirit, a lady whose impulses were always high and pure, and whose character answered to them. One day I was there at dinner, and remarked, in a general way, that we are all liars. She was amazed, and said, "Not all?" It was before Pinafore's time, so I did not make the response which would naturally follow in our day, but frankly said, "Yes, all -- we are all liars; there are no exceptions." She looked almost offended, and said, "Why, do you include me?" "Certainly," I said, "I think you even rank as an expert." She said, " Sh---- sh! the children!" So the subject was changed in deference to the children's presence, and we went on talking about other things. But as soon as the young people were out of the way, the lady came warmly back to the matter and said, "I have made it the rule of my life to never tell a lie; and I have never departed from it in a single instance." I said, "I don't mean the least harm or disrespect, but really you have been lying like smoke ever since I've been sitting here. It has caused me a good deal of pain, because I am not used to it." She required of me an instance -- just a single instance. So I said,--
(snip)

http://www.art.com/asp/sp.asp?PD=10079986&RFID=312265

[nolabels]

101. Opps, forgot the link to Mark Twain part of post

I know, I am shameless ;-) http://www.boondocksnet.com/twaintexts/art_of_lying.html

[DarienComp]

97. No.

They're stuck now. Especially Lieberman, Gephardt and Edwards.

What this DOES do is produce a boost for all candidates who were against the war. Especially Dean.

[Trek234]

100. Voting Green

Just as in 02 if I go to the polls and see a congressional dem who voted for war OR has a voting record equal to or worse than a repub I'm voting Green. Don't care if a repub gets in as a result - not loosing very much. There is no "out" for them in my book.

[Cascadian]

102. I have mentioned this in a another posting

The Demos who voted for the war and for the Patriot Act have a lot to answer to. They jumped right into the voting in favor of this and I think they are part of the problem with the Democratic leadership. Howard Dean was right when he said that there needs to be a change of leadership within the Democratic Party. Rolling over and letting things happen just don't cut it! It's time to clean house!

John