The moment I saw George Bush cozying up to Joe Lieberman, I had a feeling that Lieberman was toast.
Understand, I was never that wild about Lieberman. Whenever I heard him speak I always felt like I was being scolded by a dyspectic rabbi. It says something, though, that Bush gets himself reelected despite being the originator of his wildly unpopular policies (or at least the perpetrator of the policies he’s told to institute) but those who wind up supporting those policies get killed in elections. Remember the day that Kerry said he would have voted the same way in the Iraqi question even if he knew then what he knew now, and I said that right then, right there, he’d just lost the election even though it wasn’t for another three months? We’re seeing a fascinating example of a classic truth: That Americans are reluctant to switch Commanders in Chief during war (naturally one of the great benefits of Bush launching it) but apparently we’re now seeing they sure don’t mind dumping anyone else who was in favor of it.
It’s almost as if the current crop of Democrats have neither a chance nor a clue. To put it in Lieberman terms, it may be that the entire generation of Democrats have to die out (i.e., be voted out) and a new generation of young turks with little experience, but no ties to the misbegotten launching of the war before they’ll be allowed to enter the promised land.
PAD
• 
the invasion of Iraq was a bad idea poorly executed
Folks should be reminded that there are TWO ideas presented here. Some people tend to lump them together.
I’d like to suggest that telling yourself and us that you’re better than some of the more irrational posters in this forum is, to quote Dennis Miller, akin to “being the Valedictorian in summer school.”
heh!
If the Bush Administration had no political incentive to manipulate the timing of the raid, then why not just sit back and let British authorities do the job on their timetable? Why put pressure at all?
Because imagine if the british were wrong about the date by just a few days…imagine more people killed than on 9/11, the airline industry virtually destroyed, and imagine it comes out that Bush and co knew about it and did nothing. Would you have sat there and said “Thank God he didn’t inject politics into a Birtish police investigation!” Good call!” Hëll, I’d have been right there with you holding the rope with which to string him up (Note to any Secret Service men reading this–I’m being metaphorical).
As it was, arresting them just 5 days to the planned even was cutting it very close. If anything does happen on the 16th, if, God forbid, one of them managed to avoid identification and carries out his mission don’t you think there will be justified critisism of Scotland yard for waiting too long?
As it was, arresting them just 5 days to the planned even was cutting it very close.
Actually, they were planning a dry run first, not the actual mission.
“If anything does happen on the 16th, if, God forbid, one of them managed to avoid identification and carries out his mission don’t you think there will be justified critisism of Scotland yard for waiting too long?”
No, because the mistake would not have been in waiting too long. From what I’ve read, the Brits were delaying gathering these guys up for the explicit reason of identifying the maximum number of people connected with them before arrests made everyone go to ground. If, God forbid, somebody managed to escape detection and smuggle something deadly onto a plane, then maybe the Brits would be due critism for making some type of major mistake…but it wouldn’t be waiting too long. Waiting more would have increased the chances of identifying more of the suspects.
Of course, it would also increase the chances of the suspects pulling something off. Hence the US Administration’s desire to speed up the arrest. I think what we’re seeing here is a lessor tolerance for the risks involved in a terrorist attack as well as the U.S. standing to suffer higher losses should those risks go the wrong way (in the POV of the U.S. at least).
Cheney’s “Democrats soft of terror” type comments were likely made to capitalize on the political effects of the arrests, but I don’t believe that politcal gain was the primary goal of the U.S. trying to speed up the arrests. I am going to give even the current U.S. Administration (whom I depise) the benefit of the doubt and believe that protecting thousands of American lives from a terrorist attack was MORE important than protecting the Republican Party from the consequences of such an attack. Note: I’m saying the politics were LESS important than protecting thousands of Americans, not that the politics were UNimportant. These guys are political animals in political jobs. Everything they do has political consequences and I have no doubt that there is a host of people reporting to Karl Rove whose sole job is to divine what the political consequences of their actions are.
Robert, it doesn’t take very much to convince me that the current administration is doing something solely for sleazy political reasons, and even I’m not convinced in this case.
What I think is sleazy is that Cheney/Snow/etc. made all of the statements they did KNOWING that the arrests were coming. It’s basically using inside information to score political points — almost the political equivalent of insider trading. I think that’s a somewhat disgusting political tactic, and one worthy of scorn — but it’s nowhere near the conspiracy you’re discussing.
As many others have said, there’s such a lengthy list of things the administration can most definitely be condemned for that I don’t see a need to stretch this particular point. If anything, it might wind up making the other criticisms look questionable as well, and I certainly don’t want that.
TWL
What I think is sleazy is that Cheney/Snow/etc. made all of the statements they did KNOWING that the arrests were coming.
Exactly. Why manipulate events when you have the inside dope that lets you define the debate before your opponents can even react?
In some ways, the administration is the victim of their own past tactics. They’ve been exposed for being secretic and manipulative so many times in the past, that people will believe them capable of anything.
Couldn’t you, for the sake of arguement, call Snow and Cheney’s arguements, I don’t know, treasonous? Think about it. The Veep says something aluding to current operations against terror. One of these guys in England catches wind, they all go underground for three or four months, then come up with something WORSE to do on airplanes. You should never let the enemy know what you know. (insert cheap shot about anybody you like in government HERE)
Couldn’t you, for the sake of arguement, call Snow and Cheney’s arguements, I don’t know, treasonous?
I’ve seen dumber arguments. But the fact that nobody here has reprwented those statements suggests that there is far less to them than it would take to rise to the level of “treason”. A biref perusal of the web only gives me the following: The vice president suggested that Lamont’s victory might encourage “the al-Qaida types” who want to “break the will of the American people in terms of our ability to stay in the fight and complete the task.”
He portrayed the Democratic Party as preferring that the United States “retreat behind our oceans and not be actively engaged in this conflict and be safe here at home.”
Unless we are now fighting terrorist mind readers I don’t think you can argue that Cheney was risking a tip off. But as I said, there are dumber arguments out there.
I also think that Karl Rove is PRAYING that Democrats begin to claim that Cheney’s statements are treason, for the reasons that Tim mentioned above. The more the crazy charges are thrown out there the less likely that any possibly legitimate ones will stick.
Bill (Mulligan),
A couple of things that occurred to me over the course of the day needed responses:
I haven’t been too impressed with Bloomberg but my exposure has been admitedly limited. I’m put off by the nannystate crap I see NYC going through when I visit–nobody is more anti-smoking than I am, hate the filthy things, but the antismoking measures Bloomberg pushed though seem nuts to me. I’m not looking for a candidate who will EXPAND the “war on drugs”!
Neither am I, but I’m not sure this is really doing that. I agree that there’s a certain nanny-ish quality to the smoking ban, and on that level I’m not thrilled with it — but the overall package is one I feel I can respect.
My sense of the drug “war”, BTW, is twofold. On the one hand, I think the solution to most drugs is to do the same thing we’ve done with tobacco: legalize it and then regulate the hëll out of it. The clandestine drug trade evaporates, drug abuse is treated as the illness it is, and the added revenue helps cut taxes in other areas or foster increased spending on things like, oh, universal health care. Seems like a win!
On the other hand, I don’t think a ban on smoking in restaurants, etc. is necessarily a bad thing. Secondhand smoke has been demonstrated to have actual physical consequences, and basic laws of thermodynamics make the whole idea of a “non-smoking” open section in restaurants an exercise in idiocy. (Sidney Harris had a fantastic cartoon about that many many years ago.) There’s nothing inconsistent about saying “smoking is legal, but not in a public facility” — sex is legal, but I’d rather people not be engaging in it at the next table while I’m having dinner. (That’s about as far as I’m going to take THAT analogy, though.)
If any former mayor of NYC gets the nod I think his initials will be RG.
True, and that’ll be another sign of the impending apocalypse. I grew up around here, so I remember RG when he was just a piece-of-šhìŧ psycho prosecutor rather than a megalomaniac mayor. I’d sooner gnaw my own eyeballs off than see him go any higher up the political food chain. (Remember, this is the guy who thought Bernie Kerik was just dandy to have around.)
but keep in mind I think you are about as typical a Democrat as I am a Republican. For better or worse.
I’m curious about this. I can think of several ways in which you’re not a typical Republican in terms of your stands on issues, but in what way am I not a typical Democrat in your eyes? I’m not saying it’s a bad thing — I’d just as soon not be a “typical” anything (other than a typical matinee idol over whom every woman swoons, of course) — I’m just wondering what’s given you that impression.
TWL
Well, you’re a lot more liberal than the average Democrat but you are a lot more reasonable than most of the people I’ve come across who are as liberal as you are. Obviously I have no quantitative evidence to back up the latter opinion and it may be just that my exposure to the far left has been atypicial (and by far left I don’t mean extreme far left. The idiots who bomb Starbucks or send threatening emails to animal researchers are memebrs of the same political affiliation as those who shoot abortion doctors or burn crosses on the homes of Black people, in my book. That their targets differ seems to me to be a minor point.)
And obviously, you are more intelligent than the average member of either party. That may not always translate into being right but it’s better than the alternative.
The idiots who bomb Starbucks or send threatening emails to animal researchers are memebrs of the same political affiliation as those who shoot abortion doctors or burn crosses on the homes of Black people, in my book. That their targets differ seems to me to be a minor point.)
That’s a parallel that could be extended to many other areas.
Unfortunately, most Americans seem to be too dim to handle the abstraction–change the target and you change the thinking entirely in their way of going about things….
here’s a bit of skepticism about the UK Terror plot from a former ambassador.
http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/weblog.html
Okay, my putting treasonous in the place where “kind of a bad idea” was, well, kind of a bad idea. Sorry, my over-reaction, over thinking worst case scenarios again.
Bill, Roger, the interesting thing is that even if you tell the members of these groups they act like each other, they’ll deny it for all they’re worth, because their JUSTIFICATION is better. To them, anyway.
I wouldn’t read too much into one state’s most hardcore democratic primary voters. If the election were held today, lieberaman would win the state.
(of course if the Republican nominee had a pulse, he would be the ultimate beneficiary if lieberamn runs independent. But he doesn’t).
I’ve seen it written by a liberal democrat that the election was lost on two lines (and it is a little simplistic, because elections are won and lost on thousands of things).
Kerry: I actually voted for the $86 billion before I voted against it.
Bush: You may not always agree with me, but you’ll always know where I stand.
The Democrats national problem-trouble connecting to the values based voter and the Vietnam hangover-they aren’t trusted with national security.
Kerry could have gotten around that as a veteran and war hero. But he got swift boated. He ran on his vietnam record, and early on, it was 95% of his campaign. and his party started the “You can’t criticize a veteran” thing on national security. Which helped shelter the swift boaters from criticism, because they too were veterans of war. So he lost that edge (not arguing wghether ti was fair or not) and never recovered. He was off message after that. “John Kerry reporting for duty” was sunk.
My father in law, a vietnam vet, who usually loves veteran politicians from either party, hated his guts for his after vietnam activities-which also hurt him in the traditional veteran based vote. The hate he felt for him is only rivaled on this earth by Jane Fonda! and Bob Dole (but that is another more personal story
-and he didn’t hate Bob per se).
If the Democrats want to win in 2008, history says nominate a Southern Governor. Only a Democratic Southerner has been able to win elections for Democrats in the last 42 years. and one got help from Watergate.
The vietnam lesson is don’t let the radical anti war elements of the party (and not just specific to this war) consume the party.
However, even if the republican congress and president were phenomenally popular, fatigue sets in and Democrats would have a decent chance in 2006 and 2008. Incumbent parties almost always lose in the mid year election of the second term.
and 2008 will be wide open with no VP heir apparent, and the war won’t be over by then.
And how soon we forget that every move Clinton made was second guessed and hamstrung by his political opponents and right wing pundits who declared that any offensive or retaliatory actions Clinton took were designed purely to take attention away from Monica Lewinsky.
*****
He wasn’t that concerned about terorism though. He should have led and failed to lead. He treated each incident individually as a criminal matter instead of seeing the need for a broad policy.
Islamo fascists in general benefitted before 2001 by mistakes made by Carter, Reagan. Bush I, and Clinton.
and islamic terorism in general specifically benefitted from failures of Clinton for 8 years and Bush II for 8 months. The 9 11 commission report demonstrates this. Something liek 4 times we could have killed Bin Laden in the 90s but the plan was we had to capture him. Everyone knew when we tried, he would be killed in the capture, But they were afraid to try and kill him. Some of the people who had him in their sights were afraid to do it without specific authorization. Clinton himself has said he does not know why they felt they were not allowed to kill him
However, as important a symbol and perpetratior OBL is, his death wouldn’t have ended anuthing. That whole area has to change first.
and really, hindsight is 20/20, and the people truly at fall are the madmen, murderers, psychos, and jihadists.
The country as a whole did not take them seriously enough, and none of the modern presidents did either, having other things that seemed more pressing.
In case you’ve forgotten, our original reason for invading that country was about getting the mythical WMDs, not 9/11 or Al Qaida.
****
False. The war speech of Bush, and the Congressional authorization make clear otherwise.
The war in Iraq was fought because after 9/11, the lesson was learned rightly or wrongly that you can’t wait until after you are hit to stop a foe. Call it, the Neville Chamberlain lesson relearned.
The debate over WMDs was the main debate, but not nearly the only reason. There were a ton of other reasons given. The debate over WMDs occurred because (a) the administration thought it the easiest thing to argue to the public (b) no one really credibly denied they had WMDs, certainly not any of the major players and (c) WMDs were the most dramatic.
But there were a good 6-10 reasons always given, from the beginning. It was a war called for by a longtime by some, who felt the first Gulf War ended too soon (and not just republicans, it was a frequent democrat critisism as well-helped the shiites in the uprising). and Reghime change was official policy of the US since the clinton yearsk, though it was thought undercover support/financing/CIA activities were necessary for that as the US would not support a war there without an immediate precipice.
There were two umbrella reasons always given-
(1) 9/11 changed everything-under this falls-(a) WMDs, (b) helping terrorists, and (c) history of invading/threatening others including the US, including our pilots (under this would fall the violation of the ceasefire, attempted assassination of Bush I etc).
(2) Helping the Iraqi people/removing a tyrant/stability in the region..
1 was why it helped us, 2 was why it was a moral thing to do.
The 2 reason was almost always mentioned first in speeches, included the speech announcing the war had begun. The 1 reason was always the reason it was being sold to other countries
“
Bush’s speecg announcing the war-notice how late WMDS are mentioned in the speech and it is all on the Iraqi people and the terribleness of Saddam.
THE PRESIDENT: My fellow citizens, at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger.
On my orders, coalition forces have begun striking selected targets of military importance to undermine Saddam Hussein’s ability to wage war. These are opening stages of what will be a broad and concerted campaign. More than 35 countries are giving crucial support — from the use of naval and air bases, to help with intelligence and logistics, to the deployment of combat units. Every nation in this coalition has chosen to bear the duty and share the honor of serving in our common defense.
To all the men and women of the United States Armed Forces now in the Middle East, the peace of a troubled world and the hopes of an oppressed people now depend on you. That trust is well placed.
The enemies you confront will come to know your skill and bravery. The people you liberate will witness the honorable and decent spirit of the American military. In this conflict, America faces an enemy who has no regard for conventions of war or rules of morality. Saddam Hussein has placed Iraqi troops and equipment in civilian areas, attempting to use innocent men, women and children as shields for his own military — a final atrocity against his people.
I want Americans and all the world to know that coalition forces will make every effort to spare innocent civilians from harm. A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict. And helping Iraqis achieve a united, stable and free country will require our sustained commitment.
We come to Iraq with respect for its citizens, for their great civilization and for the religious faiths they practice. We have no ambition in Iraq, except to remove a threat and restore control of that country to its own people.
I know that the families of our military are praying that all those who serve will return safely and soon. Millions of Americans are praying with you for the safety of your loved ones and for the protection of the innocent. For your sacrifice, you have the gratitude and respect of the American people. And you can know that our forces will be coming home as soon as their work is done.
Our nation enters this conflict reluctantly — yet, our purpose is sure. The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder. We will meet that threat now, with our Army, Air Force, Navy, Coast Guard and Marines, so that we do not have to meet it later with armies of fire fighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.
Now that conflict has come, the only way to limit its duration is to apply decisive force. And I assure you, this will not be a campaign of half measures, and we will accept no outcome but victory.
My fellow citizens, the dangers to our country and the world will be overcome. We will pass through this time of peril and carry on the work of peace. We will defend our freedom. We will bring freedom to others and we will prevail.
May God bless our country and all who defend her.
This is the Joint Congressional Resolution authorizing war. This is October 2002, fairly early. Notice how many reasons are given. WMDs are a much much bigger focus than in Bush’s speech, but many other reasons are given-including legal reasons (violation of ceasefires and UN resolutions). The document is very legal and carefully crafted to cover all the legal bases. It grants the President authoriuty to use force, and it complies with the War Powers Act.
Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of United States Armed Forces Against Iraq
Whereas in 1990 in response to Iraq’s war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq;
Whereas after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Whereas the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Whereas in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq’s continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in “material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations” and urged the President “to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations” (Public Law 105-235);
Whereas Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Whereas the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Whereas Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Whereas the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001 underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Whereas Iraq’s demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Whereas Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President “to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677”;
Whereas in December 1991, Congress expressed its sense that it “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),” that Iraq’s repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and “constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region,” and that Congress, “supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688”;
Whereas the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Whereas on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to “work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge” posed by Iraq and to “work for the necessary resolutions,” while also making clear that “the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable”;
Whereas the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq’s ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Whereas Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001 or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Whereas the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Whereas it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region;
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the “Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq”.
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to–
(a) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(b) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) AUTHORIZATION. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION.
In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) WAR POWERS RESOLUTION REQUIREMENTS. —
(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION. — Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS. — Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 2 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that the information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
###
Baloney. WMDs were the marketing ploy from day one. It was the whole basis of the UN presentation the Powell trashed his credibility over. It was the whole point of getting Hans Blix one more go at inspections before the invasion began. Rummy even said he new exactly where they were!
Yes, other reasons were given and yes, WMDs were not the real reason Bush was so freakin’ gung ho to invade without any postwar planning, but it was sold to the American public on the basis of “slam dunk” evidence that the WMDs were there. That was the primary reason used to convince the American people that the war could not wait. Remember Condi and Rummy both saying we couldn’t wait until the smoking gun became a mushroom cloud?
Please, don’t feed me that line of bull that the primary justification wasn’t about WMDs. Sure, the actual reason Bush wanted to go in was to support the PNAC agenda and reshape the middle east, but that’s not how it was marketed to the American people.
And it sure has hëll wasn’t about 9/11. Nor was it about “bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.”
spiderrob8, I’m at work and don’t have time to read all of your posts at this moment but will do so later. Nevertheless, I do want to address some specific points that caught my eye…
spiderrob8: “False. The war speech of Bush, and the Congressional authorization make clear otherwise.”
Just because one says a thing does not mean it is true. If all presidents were honest, we’d never have suffered through Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater, or the Clinton-Lewinsky affair.
spiderrob8: “The war in Iraq was fought because after 9/11, the lesson was learned rightly or wrongly that you can’t wait until after you are hit to stop a foe. Call it, the Neville Chamberlain lesson relearned.”
You are drawing parallels between two situations that really have few, if any, parallels. At the time that Chamberlain signed Munich Agreement, Germany had begun a massive military build-up and was clearly a threat.
On the other hand, the evidence indicating that Iraq was a threat was thinner and more dubious. In fact, people tend to forget that some members of the CIA complained about how the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence, ignoring evidence that Iraq in fact posed no significant threat.
spiderrob8: “The debate over WMDs was the main debate, but not nearly the only reason. There were a ton of other reasons given. The debate over WMDs occurred because (a) the administration thought it the easiest thing to argue to the public (b) no one really credibly denied they had WMDs, certainly not any of the major players and (c) WMDs were the most dramatic.
“But there were a good 6-10 reasons always given, from the beginning. It was a war called for by a longtime by some, who felt the first Gulf War ended too soon (and not just republicans, it was a frequent democrat critisism as well-helped the shiites in the uprising).”
Yes, a lot of people felt that way — and ignored the advice of military experts who warned that toppling Saddam would be easy, but occupying Iraq would be a bloody mess. George H.W. Bush, having served in the military himself, wisely listened to the counsel of those who were experienced in fighting wars.
George W. Bush, however, was more interested in the fluffy nonsense of neocons who preferred untested ideas over the experience of people who had actually, you know, fought wars.
spiderrob8: “and Reghime change was official policy of the US since the clinton yearsk, though it was thought undercover support/financing/CIA activities were necessary for that as the US would not support a war there without an immediate precipice.”
Yes, and there’s good reason not to have supported the war for lacking a “precipice” (sic). We’re bogged down in a quagmire in Iraq, and have created a breeding ground for terrorists. We’ve made theings worse rather than better. Moreover, because we must commit massive resources to Iraq, we are less able to address actual threats, like Afghanistan (where the war does not go well), Iran and North Korea.
spiderrob8: “There were two umbrella reasons always given-
“(1) 9/11 changed everything-under this falls-(a) WMDs, (b) helping terrorists, and (c) history of invading/threatening others including the US, including our pilots (under this would fall the violation of the ceasefire, attempted assassination of Bush I etc).
“(2) Helping the Iraqi people/removing a tyrant/stability in the region..
“1 was why it helped us, 2 was why it was a moral thing to do.”
You are completely incorrect that the war helped us. Instead, it has cost us lives, tied up resources that could be better used elsewhere, and provided a breeding ground for more terrorists. It has emboldened nations like Iran and North Korea, who realize that we simply don’t have the resources to confront them militarily at the moment.
If the recent arrests of terrorists plotting to blow up planes flying from the U.K. to the U.S. demonstrates anything, it’s that out occupation of Iraq has done nothing to stem the tide of terror elsewhere. The plot was foiled not by our presence in Iraq, but by joint cooperation between intelligence and law enforcement officials in Pakistan, Britain and the U.S.
As far as the morality argument goes, there are plenty of corrupt regimes that deserve to be taken down. Why are we not toppling every last one of them? Because it’s not practical. We have to assess threats and intervene where it makes the most sense.
George W. Bush didn’t assess Iraq properly. He ignored evidence that Iraq no longer possessed WMDs. The link between Iraq and Al Qaeda was never substantiated, and in fact there is evidence that such a link never existed. I mean, Osama bin Laden had named Saddam as being on his “šhìŧ list,” for crying out loud.
spiderrob8, in the interests of keeping things civil (we have rubbed each other the wrong way in the past, after all) please allow me to offer an amendment to a statement I made above. I stated that you are “completely incorrect” about the Iraq war helping us. I should have said that “I believe you are completely incorrect” that the war helped us.
I simply want to ensure that you and I can discuss ideas, which is worthwhile, and avoid a duel of personalities, which serves no useful purpose, as I’m sure you’d agree.
Hi.
I’ve done already the Iraq discussion, but please, whatever you do, don’t justify this war by refering to Saddam’s alleged help to the Hamas. the Hamas is a local problem of Israel, and i’d rather not be associated with more than one unsuccessful war at a time. Also, the last thing I need is somebody blaming Israel or the Jews for Iraq (or any other wars that ever happened other than the ones we actually did do). I know it sounds strange, but sometimes people have too many drinks.
bye.
Hi.
I’ve done already the Iraq discussion, but please, whatever you do, don’t justify this war by refering to Saddam’s alleged help to the Hamas. the Hamas is a local problem of Israel, and i’d rather not be associated with more than one unsuccessful war at a time. Also, the last thing I need is somebody blaming Israel or the Jews for Iraq (or any other wars that ever happened other than the ones we actually did do). I know it sounds strange, but sometimes people have too many drinks.
bye.
Micha, nice to hear from you. I hope the cease-fire that is taking effect will be a real and lasting one (or at least as real and lasting as is possible under the circumstances).
Unfortunately, some people will blame the Jews for a rainy day, and no amount of logic will stop them.
The fact is, howevever, that the blame for the Iraq mess lies squarely on the shoulders of the U.S. George W. Bush was, I believe, looking for an excuse to humble the country whose leader, Saddam Hussein, humiliated his father, George H.W. Bush. That, and I believe he accepted the bûllšhìŧ fed to him by his neocon cronies: that the Iraqis would welcome us as liberators, making Iraq the ideal place to establish a beachhead of U.S.-style democracy in the Middle East.
Of course, plenty of people in the intelligence and military community tried to tell Dubya that his neocon braintrust was wrong. But Dubya chose not to listen. And thus we’re in the mess we’re in.
Look at the bright side. The Iraqis and other Arabs love the 2nd amendment.
There is an old joke that goes someting like this:
A: It’s all the Jews’ and the bicycle riders’ fault.
B: why the bicycle riders?
Also, the last thing I need is somebody blaming Israel or the Jews for Iraq (or any other wars that ever happened other than the ones we actually did do). I know it sounds strange, but sometimes people have too many drinks.
Too late. It’s canon among the far left and far right alike that EVERYTHING the USA does is somehow at the behest of teh Israel lobby. It unites the Cindy Sheehans and Pat Buchanans of the world.
Here’s another joke- (From National Review)
The angels come to God after he has finished with creation and ask why he has favored the Jews so heavily. “You’ve given them a land of milk and honey, of olives, barley, dates and pomegranates,” they say.”They’re gonna have have Nobel Prize winners, artists and scientists way out of proportion to their numbers. It’s not fair!”
“Oh yeah?” God says. “Wait till you see the neighbors I gave them.”
I am more offended by Cindy Sheehan. I’ve participated and organized demonstrations like hers with people who have suffered similar loses. So when someone who claims to belong to the camp of peace, humanism, tolerance, rationalism, progress draw from the well of one of the most ancient, irrational and violent racisms in history (or are willing to accept it from their allies), it hurts me almost physically.
I recently encountered this in an essay by a Norwegian writer named Jostein Gaarder, who wrote a book I own and like called Sophie’s World. This bothered me much more than Mel Gibson’s drunken rantings, because this guy wrote an essay that pretended to be one of a humanitarian but was actually the worst kind of racism.
1spiderrob8: “The war in Iraq was fought because after 9/11, the lesson was learned rightly or wrongly that you can’t wait until after you are hit to stop a foe. Call it, the Neville Chamberlain lesson relearned.”
You are drawing parallels between two situations that really have few, if any, parallels. At the time that Chamberlain signed Munich Agreement, Germany had begun a massive military build-up and was clearly a threat.
On the other hand, the evidence indicating that Iraq was a threat was thinner and more dubious. In fact, people tend to forget that some members of the CIA complained about how the Bush administration cherry-picked intelligence, ignoring evidence that Iraq in fact posed no significant threat.
*****
I was making a neutral argument, not stating my opinion.
That is why I said the lesson was learned, rightly, or wrongly.
I believe that 9/11 cemented in many people’s minds that you have to act now rather than later, including with Iraq.
I am not making a judgment call on it
“(1) 9/11 changed everything-under this falls-(a) WMDs, (b) helping terrorists, and (c) history of invading/threatening others including the US, including our pilots (under this would fall the violation of the ceasefire, attempted assassination of Bush I etc).
“(2) Helping the Iraqi people/removing a tyrant/stability in the region..
“1 was why it helped us, 2 was why it was a moral thing to do.”
You are completely incorrect that the war helped us. Instead, it has cost us lives, tied up resources that could be better used elsewhere, and provided a breeding ground for more terrorists. It has emboldened nations like Iran and North Korea, who realize that we simply don’t have the resources to confront them militarily at the moment.
****
I was not saying that it helped us or was good for us. I think it will take 50 years for us to know what the fall out of this is, I really do.
What I meant was # 1 was the argument why it helped us, # 2 was the argument why, beyond self-interest, why it was morally justified.
I personally belief people who say that new reasons were invented later are being disingenuous to make their arguments and were not paying attention. All arguments were made at all times. The main threat came from the alleged WMDs went the argument, but many many things were stressed from the beginning until the end, including And this will help the Iraqi people too. Especially from Bush (less so from Cheney). Rather than inventing new arguments, focus shifted to different arguments after some proved invalid ( or at best less clear). But the idea these arguments came up afterwards is demonstrably false. Several arguments were virtually everytime linked.
People have their own agendas and are blinded by that. It helps to demonize the other side, despite the fact that they are people too, and may think differently than you, may even be wrong, but that doesn’t make everything sinister, evil, nazi-esque.
Personally, I feel NK and Iran would be acting exactly like they are right now, with or without Iraq. They’ve been doing it sincd the Clinton years (and before really). That’s no one’s fault, jujst the way those countries are, from the korean war to the hostage crisis, and the fact that their leaders are pretty crazy, and they have a hatred for us anyway. I do believe Iraq pushed Libya the other way.
I also believe had we not gone into Iraq there is an 80% chance we’d be at war with Iran right now, for better or for worse. and I do believe in the next 20 years, we will be.
spiderrob8, in the interests of keeping things civil (we have rubbed each other the wrong way in the past, after all) please allow me to offer an amendment to a statement I made above. I stated that you are “completely incorrect” about the Iraq war helping us. I should have said that “I believe you are completely incorrect” that the war helped us.
I simply want to ensure that you and I can discuss ideas, which is worthwhile, and avoid a duel of personalities, which serves no useful purpose, as I’m sure you’d agree.
***
It is ok Bill. I really was trying to correct, objectively, what I believe is a falsehood (objectively so). I was not commenting on the usefulness or right fulness of the war.
I also don’t think the British thing really proves anything. No matter what we do, and where, there will be threats that happen. That doesn’t mean other actions caused those threats, made them worse, or didn’t make them worse. It kinda is like saying “Guiliani made us safer in NYC by taking on the mob (hypothetical).” “What, didn’t you hear there was a guy who killed 20 people last week.” Under this hypothetical, Guiliani may or may not have made us safer in NYC, and taking on the mob may or may not have helped but the fact that there continues to be murders is not proof of that one way or the other. Also, I believe when judging actions taken by Bush or Clinton or any of them, long term and short term must be looked at.
Everything has long term and short term effects.
For ex,various compromises may have made the US more safe in the short term in the 20 years before the Civil War. Long term, theoretically, those compromises may have made the war worse. (Not arguing, just suggesting its possible).
Or the atomic bomb-short term, thousands of japanese were killed. Long term, some would argue that hundreds of thousands of japanese were thereby spared and millions potentially of people because the world had a real life example of the power of the bomb. Perhaps long term, without its use, the bomb would have been used again. (Like in Vietnam when Ike was urged to drop small ones on the Vietnamese as the French were falling). Maybe not though.
Iraq will have effects in the future we can’t predict.
Please, don’t feed me that line of bull that the primary justification wasn’t about WMDs. Sure, the actual reason Bush wanted to go in was to support the PNAC agenda and reshape the middle east, but that’s not how it was marketed to the American people.
And it sure has hëll wasn’t about 9/11. Nor was it about “bringing freedom to the Iraqi people.”
****
No one can know the “actual reason.” Like anything else, there are myriad of reasons pushing and pulling against things.
From everything I have read, I personally believe GWB mind did change post 9/11, that he believed there were WMDs, and that he did want to bring freedom to Iraq, and thought he would. I also think he thought it would reshape the middle and make America safer in the long run. I also believe that he was pre-disposed to feel this way because he hated Iraq, hated the fact it was “unfinished business” and could not believe what he felt, and many to be fair, was the history of the Iraq regime in denying and hiding. I think in many people’s mind was after Gulf War I, there were more, not less, WMDs than we expected. and many videos, that I myself saw, of Iraqis taking things out the back door when inspectors were coming in the front, burying things, etc. Dissidents told him what he was predisposed to believe as well. I think the lack of inspectors finding anything, given his predispostion, confirmed in his mind the incompetence of the inspectors. I also think several times, early on Bush was cautious in his language, and Cheney would say something piublicly less cautious, moving Bush and others to be less cautious and precise in words.
But then, I think Bush, like Clinton, and everyhting else, is a 3 dimensional human beings with positive and negative traits. Not evil.
However, that has nothing to do with my argument or the facts. The war was sold on several things, as demonstrated by just abotu every speech GWB gave, and others. The existence of WMDs, in fact, was barely debated. ALmost everyone assumed “saddam is a lying scumbag and he has and is trying to develope WMDs” Its whether those WMDs were a threat at all to us in the future, given the sanctions and other things, that were thr true debate.
But there was always several arguments being made. Primarily, but not exclusively:
(1) Saddam has WMDs which will be a threat to us at some point, possibly soon since X, Y, and Z want to end the sanctions. Dozens of quotes (from Dems and Reps) can be found saying we have to stop Iraq from becoming an imminent threat, not necessarily that he is an imminent threat. THe argument was post 9/11, we can’t afford to wait, our oceans don’t protect us anymore.
(2) Saddam has connection to terrorists. Al Aquaeda, Palestinian bombers, other groups. Bad on its own, AND he could post 9/11 pass his WMDs technology or knowledge to them. Interestingly, the argument to counter this was OBL hated Iraq and wanted nothing to do with Saddam. Post war, we see some evidence of the opposite. OBL made some overtures that Saddam rejected. We’ve seen some ties to other terrorists, vaguely, but not the ones set forth beforehand.
(3)Saddam is a bad guy who has done bad things and the Iraqi people would be better off and have suffered enough and maybe we can make us safer because this can change the whole middle east.
‘Iraq is a threat to us-proof-history, WMDs, terrorism ties, post 9/11 we can’t take a chance, legally we are justified see ceasefire terms, UN agreements, and the people there would be better off anyway.’
These arguments are not mine. They are not right (or at least I am not saying they are right). But they were always made.
But then, I think Bush, like Clinton, and everyhting else, is a 3 dimensional human beings with positive and negative traits. Not evil.
I never said that Bush was evil. Incompetent, yes, but not evil.
Cheney, on the other hand. . .
Look, maybe we’ll never know exactly what was going through his head, but it’s clear from every bit of information coming from the White House that the decision was made to invade, then they went looking for a justification. WMDs were settled on because of the relevant UN resolutions and the fact that the majority of Americans at the time responded favorably to that as a justification, ie, it was the marketing plan.
Maybe Bush did sincerely believe that the WMDs would be found, which is why he gave weight to every bit of information that lent credence to it and ignored every opinion that doubted their existance. Or maybe he was just cynically manipulating the public with lies. We’ll never know. But that fact still remains is that the invasion was sold the American people based on there being WMDs in Iraq.
And going back in time and pretending it wasn’t is just pure fantasy.
But that fact still remains is that the invasion was sold the American people based on there being WMDs in Iraq.
***
and other factors. That’s all I am saying. They weren’t invented after the fact. Maybe you think they were invented before the fact. I am not arguing that.
Americans always like to feel their military action will protect their interest AND help someone else.
But that fact still remains is that the invasion was sold the American people based on there being WMDs in Iraq.
***
and other factors. That’s all I am saying. They weren’t invented after the fact. Maybe you think they were invented before the fact. I am not arguing that.
Americans always like to feel their military action will protect their interest AND help someone else.
I never said the reasons were invented after the fact. I’m saying the PRIMARY reason BEFORE the invasion was WMDs. Everything else was just an afterthought.
Please try reading what I write instead of just going with the same kneejerk response.
Nonsense. The primary reasons BEFORE the invasion were that Bush wanted Saddam (you remember: The guy who threatened his dad), wanted to finish the job his father started, wanted to make sure that his inability to capture bin Laden dead or alive–you remember, the guy who Bush later didn’t think about much–didn’t cost him a second term (just as his father’s numbers went south after record highs from Operation Desert Storm), and the oil. The agenda to capture Saddam was a priority of Bush’s Neocon advisors look before Bush took office.
But none of those would have flown with the public, and so the alleged WMDs were an excuse. A rationale. Not a reason. Cherry-picked and skewed from intelligence briefings, and used to ruthlessly exploit the shattered psyche of a fragile American populace and a compliant congress in the wake of 9/11.
History will judge Bush as the most opportunistic and manipulative president ever not elected.
PAD
Peter David: “History will judge Bush as the most opportunistic and manipulative president ever not elected.”
Peter, I agree with everything you wrote except for the above-quoted statement.
Regarding George W. Bush as election-thief in 2000: there were six states in which the margin of victory for Gore was less than 5 percent, and 5 states in which the margin of victory for Bush was also under 5 percent. Voting technology varies not only by state but, in some cases, by polling districts within each state, and much of the technology is so unreliable that a margin of 5 percent or less is questionable. Punch card technology, for example, is only reliable when the cards are of heavy stock and were punched by a precision machine; the “butterfly-ballot” ballyhoo notwithstanding, hand-punched paper ballots were a disaster waiting to happen.
Florida was chosen as the battleground because neither candidate had the resources for a protracted battle over several states, and I’m guessing they knew the country wouldn’t have the appetite for such a sprawling battle. The fact remains, however, that if Gore had been declared the victor in Florida, there would have been legitimate doubts about the validity of his election as well.
Look, I’m a staunch liberal and no fan of Dubya’s, but it’s time to put the “election thief” thing to rest.
And it is far too early to call George W. Bush’s place in history. Richard Nixon, for example, was as filthy and corrupt as any mob boss. And Watergate was a far more blatant attempt to manipulate an election than anything George W. Bush did, or was accused of doing, in 2000.
Look, I don’t like George W. Bush. I think he’s been a terrible president. But nevertheless I think it will take decades at the very least before we’ll have enough perspective to place him in historical context.
Den: “I never said the reasons were invented after the fact. I’m saying the PRIMARY reason BEFORE the invasion was WMDs. Everything else was just an afterthought.
“Please try reading what I write instead of just going with the same kneejerk response.”
In all fairness, I don’t think spiderrob8 is being knee-jerk. He is merely trying to point out that there were several rationales given for the Iraq war, and that those rationales were offered consistently from the beginning. It’s just that the WMDs got the most air-time. I think his argument is not without merit.
spiderrob8 made it clear that he’s not saying the rationales were valid, merely that they didn’t appear out of thin air after we failed to turn up the missing WMDs.
I, for one, believe that the rationales for war were baseless regardless of the fact that they were offered from the beginning. As I said, the Bush administration cherry-picked bits and pieces of intelligence that supported his pre-conceived notion that we needed to invade Iraq, and swept under the rug intelligence that indicated that Iraq did not pose a threat.
Nevertheless, I think there is value in accuracy. If the rationales were offered from the beginning, it is worth acknolwedging that in the course of this discussion. spiderrob8, thank you for contributing these facts to the debate.
Wow. To paraphrase Jim Kirk: “Don’t mince words, Peter. Tells us what you really think.”
Not that I disagree the main thrust of your post. In thirty to fifty years, those of use still alive will have probably have a good idea on how history will judge GWB, and I think that your interpretation is going to be much closer than the Divine Leader interpretation. That line just happened to pop into my head and I thought you might appreciate it.
Bill, good points all around. You’re probably gonna find the role of Reasonable Peacemaker increasingly difficult as the elections role around though. 🙂
News on the Lieberman/Lamont front: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060817/pl_nm/connecticut_lieberman_dc
The latest Quinnipiac University poll, conducted between August 10-14, shows Lieberman leads Democrat Ned Lamont, a wealthy businessman with little political experience who has played on anti-war sentiment, by 53 percent to 41 percent among likely voters in November’s election. The Republican candidate Alan Schlesinger drew 4 percent, the poll shows.
That a doubling of the lead he had right after the primary. I’m not saying that Lamont is dead in the water by any means but he’d best start doing something. I think that too much of his campaign was based on sending a “message” to Lieberman and now that the voters feel like he got it they are willing to let Joe return to office.
It would be interesting if this, the left netroot’s greatest political victory, merely resulted in the loss of 1 Democratic senate seat and, oddly, an actual boost to Lieberman’s influence (that would of course depend on the final senate makeup).
But it would be dumb to count Lamont out–at the very least he has a kajillion dollars for TV saturation. The trick now is knowing what to say.
For spiderrob up above–I wouldn’t say that the reasons were invented, but CERTAIN reasons were played up to the public a WHOLE lot more, and when they didn’t play out as planned, the quieter reasons were ushered in as if to say, “Well, there’s THIS, too.” Not EXACTLY lying or inventing, but certainly obfuscating and misleading. In a situation like this, there needs to be full disclosure beforehand.
Nonsense. The primary reasons BEFORE the invasion were that Bush wanted Saddam (you remember: The guy who threatened his dad), wanted to finish the job his father started, wanted to make sure that his inability to capture bin Laden dead or alive–you remember, the guy who Bush later didn’t think about much–didn’t cost him a second term (just as his father’s numbers went south after record highs from Operation Desert Storm), and the oil. The agenda to capture Saddam was a priority of Bush’s Neocon advisors look before Bush took office.
Well, yes, but again I’m talking about the public reasons for the invasion, i. e., the marketing plan, not the “real” reason of the PNAC agenda.
You know, the thought I just had is that if Lieberman wins and remains with the democrats, all the hype behind Lamont’s victory in the primary will turn out to be pretty meaningless, as it didn’t change the overall political climate.
What is Lamont doing to campaign at this point? He needs to get moving.
Look, I’m a staunch liberal and no fan of Dubya’s, but it’s time to put the “election thief” thing to rest.
For 2000, I generally agree — while I think there was certainly some dirty dealing going on, several states were in effect statistical ties. (I do think, however, that your statement about “if Gore had been declared the winner” leaves out the fact that Bush’s brother, the governor of Florida, would never have let such a result occur.)
For 2004? I suspect that when the history of American elections is written a century from now, the word “Diebold” is going to rate prominent mention for early 21st-century elections. Whether we have meaningful elections later in this century may depend on how quickly that history gets written, and whether anybody pays enough attention to give a dámņ.
And Watergate was a far more blatant attempt to manipulate an election than anything George W. Bush did, or was accused of doing, in 2000.
Yes. That’s why Watergate didn’t work.
TWL
Tim, I have relatives in Florida. Have no doubt: I firmly believe there were some slimy things goin’ on down there with respect to the 2000 election. Many of them were aimed at keeping blacks from voting.
And yeah, I know that Jeb Bush wanted to make sure his brother won the election by hook or by crook. If he failed in that, he probably would’ve been disowned. Had the Supreme Court allowed the recounts to continue, however, and had the recounts favored Gore, there would have been legal limits to what he could have done.
And I don’t think Watergate failed because it was so blatant. It failed because the people who tried to pull of the burglarly were incompetent. Not that I think being a competent burglar is admirable or anything. But they botched it.
Based on the things I’ve read in the years since Nixon died, I think Watergate was actually one of the least šhìŧŧÿ stunts he pulled. (And no, I don’t buy the idea that it happened without his knowledge. For God’s sake, the man deliberately budgeted for “dirty tricks” in his campaigns!)
I agree that there were likely some dirty dealings in both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Probably on both sides. Whether they actually changed the results, however, is a matter of speculation.
Maybe someday the truth will come out, but nothing we do today will likely bring that about. All we can really do is wait out the next two years and hope the next administration is willing to conduct a real investigation.
What’s truly interesting about the Quinnipac poll is that Lieberman is killing among republicans, attracing 75% compared to Schlesinger (you know, the guy the GOP nominated) is getting a mere 10%.
Rejected by his own party and then carried back into office by the party? That could very well happen.
I have to wonder why so many republicans are going for Lieberman. You’d think the majority of them would want to see their own party’s candidate win. Is the GOP candidate that much of a light weight?
Bill Mulligan: “You’re probably gonna find the role of Reasonable Peacemaker increasingly difficult as the elections role around though. :)”
OK, then, I’ll try out for the role of confrontational jerk:
FÙÇK OFF, MULLIGAN, YOU SHÍT-FOR-BRAINS ÃSSHØLÊ!
How’d I do?
Well, if I’m an áššhølë it would only stand to reason that I would have šhìŧ for brains! I mean, duh!
Slightly off topic: see what’s happened to the whistleblower for Abu Graib:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_4785
http://amygdalagf.blogspot.com/2006/08/joe-darby-redux.html
His treatment by fellow Americans is shameful. Shows that tribalism is just as strong here as it is in the Middle East.