The Democratic Response
Lampooning Bush was easy for me. I’m a Democrat. What’s harder to admit is that my “side” is just as much to blame for the Iraq War as Bush and his Republican buddies — and just as mealy-mouthed as well.
Look at Hillary Clinton. She voted for the war. She was one of the biggest hawks when it was popular. Now that it’s not, she’s using the “if I’d known then what I know now” line.
Guess what? There were questions about the strength of Bush’s case for invading Iraq well before the invasion began. They were covered in the mainstream media. Ms. Clinton and the other Democratic hawks had just as much access to the information as did I.
Bush isn’t standing on principle; he’s desperately trying to avoid admitting that the Iraq War was a costly mistake. Unfortunately, many Democrats are trying to do the same.
January 31st, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Yeah, it’s sooooo much fun to feel that there is often NO ONE actually worth stepping into that little booth for, isn’t it.
Gotta love what people will do and say to stay in power or get even more.
Say, on our conversations that it might not be that good an idea to impeach Bush…
Some odd breaking news coming out of the Libby case in tha last hour. If what I heard pans out to be true…. There might just be a lot more calls from the masses for an impeachment to be started before the year’s end.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:20 pm
I went looking for the story but found no bombshells implicating Bush in the Valerie Plame outing scandal.
Frankly, I hope we don’t have reason for another impeachment. People are cynical enough about “the system” as it is.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Yeah, like I said over at PAD’s place, I’ve been digging a bit since hearing it and can only find one source…
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/013107Z.shtml
Never heard of them before. Couple of writers I’ve heard of, but nothing in the way of saying that they’re really good or really bad sources.
I really don’t want to see an impeachment. Even if it’s shown that Bush did this stuff, It would be a fight to remove TWO guys in TWO goes at impeachment and would likely end just about the time that we would all be voting for the next office holder anyhow.
Kind of a lame reason to not want to see impeachment, but all I can think of is how much would be going wrong in iraq, Iraq and elsewhere while we’re playing stupid games.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:35 pm
I’m not the big Hillary basher most conservatives are but I wasn’t too thrilled with her bit the other day that Bush should get the troops out before the next president takes over (gee, I wonder who she thinks THAT will be).
Doesn’t work that way. Look, if she thinks they should be taken out, call for it NOW. If she thinks they should not be withdrawn then don’t call for it. It makes it sound as though she doesn’t want to have to make the hard decisions, which is not what I’m looking for in a president. Hopefully this is a minor slip.
Speaking of doomed presidential candidates, man, is Joe Biden amazing or what? ONE DAY. Took him ONE DAY to say something that will be mercilessly lampooned on Saturday Night Live. Yikes. And I like Biden.
January 31st, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Yeah, but do you wanna know the odd thing about what Biden said? He’s getting hammered for something that’s not really that far off the mark and not really that offensive.
Obama really is the first mainstream black candidate to run. All the guys and gals being brought up by the pundits and, in his own press statement, Obama himself were far from mainstream. The closest that you could argue were mainstream were Jackson and Sharpton and they were only mainstream in so far as being known by the mainstream. Their runs were seen by the mainstream as no chance runs at best and jokes at worst.
Obama hasn’t yet done anything to alienate the mainstream. The worst two things that have been said to him are his inexperience problems and his past. And damn near everything being thrown out there is about his past is a lie. He has the mainstream interested and he may end up being the first black to run for that office to have full on mainstream support.
As to the other descriptions he made of Obama, I’ve seen those same things being said about about white politicians by white politicians, pundits and bloggers. How were they uncomplimentary? Saying a guy doesn’t have those qualities is usually followed by pointing out that he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance.
Unless something else pops up, there’s no there there.
(As it seems with the Libby bit I heard earlier)
February 2nd, 2007 at 2:57 pm
You know…I could respect Hilary more if she didn’t fall back on the “We were lied to” but rather took the burden of her guilt. “I believed at the time it was wise to make that choice. In retrospect, I feel my choice was not the best and I am sorry.” But you can’t really do that in politics…you have to find a way to convince people you were not at fault at all.
February 2nd, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Yeah, Thom, I agree.
Thing is, none of the Democrats can say that without getting spanked due to a population that now lives by sound bytes. There is an explanation that does work that Hillary and others could use that is, mostly, true.
Bush went before the Congress and the U.S. and asked Congress to pass the legislation that would allow him to go to war with Iraq. Many in Congress balked at this idea and said so at the time. Bush explained that he would exhaust every channel of negotiations and do everything he could before going to war, but he said that he needed that resolution to be able to put it on the table when dealing with Iraq. Congress voted for the resolution with many making on the record comments on the floor that they were doing this only because they felt that the need was great and that they were promised that it was the last result.
Bush then, just as anyone with an I.Q. greater then your average congressman guessed well ahead of time, jumped almost straight to full war mode. He lied to get what he wanted, but only a fool couldn’t see it coming.
So you have several choices here. You can pull out all sorts of dates, times, quotes and records to show the American people that Bush lied about what he would do when he got his resolution. Problem with this is that it goes beyond the average news watchers patience levels and the would likely tune out or change channels before anything is explained. It’s too longwinded and it doesn’t make good sound bytes.
You could just build a campaign around sound bytes for this. Problem here is that the other side is far better at using sound bytes as weapons and would likely make you look stupid. Plus, even if you are getting the point across, the other side can point out that you just told the U.S. that you’re extremely gullible and easy to fool. Why should we vote for somebody with a giant sign on their forehead that says, “SUCKER.”
She can do what you’re pointing out. She can say that she made a bad decision and then she made further bad decisions in the years after that one, but now she’s seen the light. Ok. In that case, Bush just made a bad decision. I mean, if that’s all going to war was, Bush just didn’t think it out very well. And, say, isn’t it odd that she went from supporter to detractor just in time to run for ’08. Isn’t that convenient? You know that’s what they’ll build the first attacks on her around just as the warm up.
Lastly, she can do what she’s doing now. She can play spin and play CYA. Sadly, it shows little very guts or integrity on her part. Problem is, it’ll work for her. Not because the idea is any good, but because her most partisan supporters won’t care and many other potential voters “just know” that politicians will play CYA games just because they’re politicians. They all do it, so it’s the least offensive of the political sins.
Jaded? Yes. But that’s the kind of talk I hear out there all the time. I hear some variation of all of those things and it keeps coming down to not being as annoyed by a politician playing the expected games and not being more complicated then a sound byte.
Didn’t someone once say something about how our system of government was lousy, just better then all the others? Kinda feel that way a lot lately.
February 3rd, 2007 at 1:27 pm
If I were Hillary Clinton or any other Democratic presidential hopeful in Congress who voted for the resolution to authorize the use of force in Iraq, here’s the speech I’d give:
“In the wake of September 11, 2001, the disagreements between Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, looked petty and small. It was clear to me that our nation was crying out for unity: a unity of vision, of purpose, and of spirit.
“Yes, I had my reservations about the idea of invading Iraq. But the President assured us he would use force as a last resort. He assured us Iraq was a threat. So, in the spirit of unity, I made a leap of faith: I decided to trust the President regardless of his political affiliation or ideology. I decided to take a stand for unity.
“The President abused that trust. He misled Congress and the American people.
“I can assure you that as President, I would never abuse your trust the way George W. Bush has done. I would never have exaggerated intelligence reports or otherwise distorted the facts in order to take this country into an unnecessary war.”
That last sentence could serve as the sound-bite with which to hammer the Republicans.
I swear I ought to be a political speech-writer.