INDC Journal

« | Main | »

November 08, 2006
Say

Posted by Bill

... wasn't there an election yesterday?

I didn't think that the D's would take the Senate, yet expected - and perhaps endorsed as a slap to the GOP - for them to take the House. My advice to Democratic strategists: build consensus to override the President's surefire veto on a new round of stem cell research legislation, tell your lawmakers to actually listen to the advice of generals they used to bash the Administration on Iraq, and, finally, do not embroil us in vindictive impeachment hearings over a military action that the vast majority of you voted for.

I realize that expecting them to follow the latter part of this advice is like setting meat in front of a dog and telling him not to eat, but lack of restraint will set the Donks up for a thrashing in 2008.

Mildly related: the organizers of SayNoToRudy.org have had a change of heart:

Today, SayNoToRudy.org will officially cease its operations and will no longer seek to actively discourage former Mayor Rudolph Giuliani from seeking the Republican Presidential nomination in 2008. In what has been a complicated, and outright ironic, transition for the entire organization, we now officially endorse Mayor Giuliani for President in 2008, should he choose to run.

I'm sure that at least the Clintons are smart enough to hear the pitter-patter of oxford-clad, Italian-American footsteps.

(Giuliani flip link via Hot Air. Beats me where the specific permalink is ...)

Posted by Bill at November 8, 2006 10:35 AM | TrackBack (1)

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.indcjournal.com/cgi-bin/mt/dafrules/tapaz.cgi/2808

Comments

Nope. More like a layoff.

Posted by: Robb Allen at November 8, 2006 10:47 AM

I like the idea of destiny wearing Oxfords.

Posted by: Flea at November 8, 2006 11:11 AM

My one concern on Rudy (for the moment) is his pro gun control stance. But if he has to deal with a pro gun rights Congress I don't think anything will happen.
Rudy has the charmability of Reagan and Clinton, something that W sorely lacks and is what this country needs.

Posted by: rbj at November 8, 2006 12:37 PM

and, finally, do not embroil us in vindictive impeachment hearings over a military action that the vast majority of you voted for.

You cannot blame democrats for voting for Iraq because, like everyone else, they were told, with absolute certainty that Iraq had nuclear weapons and were capable of using them against the US. How could anyone have voted against going to war with Iraq in that context?! Don't try to blame democrats for the Iraq war.

Impeachment is probably inevitable and obviously justifiable in this case, and I think this would symbolically tell those Iraqis we are trying to win the hearts and minds of that dictators don't thrive under a democracy.

But I hope their initial focus is on fixing the problems that are at the the very root of why we haven't yet succeeded in Iraq. There will be a lot of people going to jail.

Posted by: rabit at November 8, 2006 02:26 PM

rabit:

You cannot blame democrats for voting for Iraq because, like everyone else, they were told, with absolute certainty that Iraq had nuclear weapons and were capable of using them against the US.

That is a lie. It's not even an approximation of the truth.

Find me the quote and cite it. You cannot.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 8, 2006 02:37 PM

I expect good things to happen because of the change.

It just depends on whether the democrats decide to spend their time on the their hands and knees sniffing the manure for shit, or they start growing something useful.

Posted by: aaron at November 8, 2006 03:08 PM

That is a lie. It's not even an approximation of the truth.

Find me the quote and cite it. You cannot.

No problemo. I'll just pick ones that can be verified easily against non-partisan websites, like the White House. ;)

--

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us. And there is no doubt that his aggressive regional ambitions will lead him into future confrontations with his neighbors -- confrontations that will involve both the weapons he has today, and the ones he will continue to develop with his oil wealth."

Dick Cheney
Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention
August 27, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

--

"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George W. Bush
President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly
September 12, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020912-1.html

--

"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent."

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address [among many, many other statements]
January 28, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030128-19.html

--

"We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."

Colin Powell
UN Security Council
February 5, 2003

--

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html

--

"Instead of a commitment to disarm, Iraq has a high-level political commitment to maintain and conceal its weapons, led by Saddam Hussein and his son Qusay, who controls the Special Security Organization, which runs Iraq's concealment activities."

A Column by Dr. Condoleezza Rice
"Why We Know Iraq is Lying"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030123-1.html

--

I could dig up many more but these are just the ones I could find with 10 minutes of Googling. Waxman's report found hundreds.

Posted by: rabit at November 8, 2006 04:06 PM

rabit -

Your statement:

they were told, with absolute certainty that Iraq had nuclear weapons and were capable of using them against the US.

Now reread the above quotes that you provided, and figure out the reason that you probably had an abysmal score on the reading comprehension portion of your SAT. The fact that you truimphantly produce these quotes as proof of your initial statement is all the funnier/more hopelessly depressing.

PS - This answer regarding your SAT score will also answer why American political opinions and media coverage about the war are so hopelessly distorted with misrepresentation.

Posted by: Bill from INDC at November 8, 2006 09:49 PM

I repeat:

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us."

Dick Cheney
Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention
August 27, 2002
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020826.html

What part of "no doubt" do you have difficulty comprehending? These are quotes you can look up right off of the White House transcripts.

"The smoking gun could arrive in the form of a mushroom cloud." Condoleeza Rice, Victoria Clarke, and George W. Bush at various appearances.

I'm not too proud to admit that I believed it when they said it. Now, as Americans are dying in Iraq in an expensive war that at best, even when we succeed, will only put us in a pre-2003 state in the war on terror, at best!

Most Americans are tired of your cowardly political party leaders playing games to stay in power while brave Americans are dying.

And I have no hope of Bush ever capturing or killing Osama.

And it's getting harder to make fun of those people who say "Bush Lied, Half-Million Died."

And what do my abysmal SAT scores have to do with anything? ;)

Posted by: rabit at November 9, 2006 06:03 AM

Rabit, as you obviously have no reading comprehension, I will spell it out for you:

"weapons of mass destruction" does not mean "nuclear weapons".

Now, it is a fact that Saddam did have, at one time, a program to develop nukes as well as biological weapons. He also did create and actually use chemical weapons.

Posted by: rbj at November 9, 2006 09:44 AM

Chemical weapons do not produce mushroom clouds, rbj. How many times did we hear phrases like "The smoking gun could arrive in the form of a mushroom cloud" coming from the administration? The message could not have been any clearer from the administration: Saddam has or is working to acquire nuclear weapons and would use them against America.

Those democrats who voted to give power to Bush to wage war did so because, like mostly everyone else, they believed the administration.

Perhaps you still do?

“Only Thing We Have to Fear Is Fear Itself”

Think about that. Fear got us into this problem and it's keeping some of us from getting out. Fear is the sole commodity of terrorists, not death, and the terrorists are winning. Except now it's the fear that you were wrong and are afraid to admit it.

I can feel your pain. :)

Posted by: rabit at November 9, 2006 01:38 PM

"could" not would. Saddam did have programs in all three areas of WDM and it was not clear that he had abandoned them. Post Sept. 11 I would rather err on the side of safety -- making sure there were no WMD by removing a genocidal tyrant than to rely on his unverifiable promises.

Posted by: rbj at November 9, 2006 02:27 PM

I agree with you 100% that it's better to err on the side of safety. Absolutely! The problem here is that the evidence was weak. Chemical weapons have a very short shelf-life so he would've had to continually be producing them post the first gulf war to maintain an effective stockpile. Nukes were pure fantasy.

I can't really fault them for their intentions, but what is infuriating is the means they went about achieving it, using the tragedy of 9/11 to build fear in the American public, destroying careers of some good people in government who were doing their job, placing a lot of incompetent loyalists in top-level government positions.

The right response to 9/11 would've been to stay focused on Al Qaeda, killing Osama and all of his operatives, however long it took, and let the American public go on with their lives. Instead, the administration waged war ON the American public, building more fear than Osama could've done alone. And even worse, continuing to do it merely to cover their mistakes and maintain power.

Anyone who says "9/11 changed everything" needs a swift roundhouse kick to the head. That is an admission of defeat to the terrorists. "changing everything" is precisely what they want to achieve.

Posted by: rabit at November 10, 2006 11:40 AM

-
av

Search

Extras
PDA

RSD
Atom
RSS 2.0
RSS 1.0

Credits
Movable Type