Of course, Obama could’ve fillibustered the Military Commissions Act if he wanted to. Dick Durbin as well.

But that requires you risk your current political standing in order to prevent the creation of a nuclear-armed totalitarian state with fantasies about it’s moral role in the universe. And that potentially could fuck up that ’08 run…

My, what a handsome basket. Let’s put all our eggs in it!

If, and only if, Cheney runs in ’08. Otherwise, Obama in ’12.

But hell, he’s got my vote.

Well said, Brad. All through the run-up to the Iraq war, I was watching the dog-and-pony show with increasing incredulousness, wondering when someone was going to call BS on these guys. Even I, sitting at home watching TV, could tell the evidence was weak. Lots of ordinary people were predicting that the war would strengthen the terrorists and weaken America’s moral standing, and they were right. But the anti-war group in my city was mocked and marginalized and accused of being unpatriotic and not supporting the troops.

One of the reasons I was never happy with John Kerry is I felt that he carried enough weight that if he had stood up to Bush, others would have followed. The opposition was there, but it never quite jelled. He missed an opportunity to lead, and to me that meant he lacked the character to be president.

Obama would make a great VP for Russ. President? Not yet.

We’ve always been at war with the Mole People. Stay the course has never been our strategy.

What is the mole people’s platform? If someone could send me some literature, I’d be curious as to their stand on things like stem-cell research and digging.

He’s got some very good points, but he’s just a little too –um– ethnic? to be elected in this country. Just because we like him, like what he stands for, like how he’s willing to speak up, doesn’t mean the red states are gonna fall in line. He will only get the nomination if the Democrats want to lose the White House. The same is true for Hillary. And as much as it pains me to say it, makes me angry and frustrated, the truth is that sex and color still, in this day and age, trump merits for much of this country. It’s true. It’s definitely not RIGHT, but it’s true. And enough top guns in the DNC know it.

~the pragmatist

I’m still a little lukewarm on his “respect the Jeebus freaks” hectoring. I fucking hate that shit. I’ll “respect” their “faith” when they respect my lack of one.

I’ll “respect� their “faith� when they respect my lack of one.

I’ll respect their faith when that faith leads them to fillibuster atrocities like the Military Commissions Act–and when its stops others from proposing atrocities in the first place. (I’m not gonna hold my breath)

Punkinsmom, that’s how I feel too. We need a presidential candidate who can nibble away at the Republican lock on the red states. Edwards or Clark, for instance. Not necessarily a Southerner, but probably one. I mean, just because in the last century exactly 2 Democrats who weren’t born in the South won the presidency. . .

Yes. Obama could have stood up for his religious and other principles as he stood up against the MCA. But he chose not to.

But I will give him an equal shot with all the other candidates.

Oh, and you can say the same about Al Gore, that which you are stating about Obama.

Of course, Obama could’ve fillibustered the Military Commissions Act if he wanted to. Dick Durbin as well.

Blame for not filibustering the Military Commissions Act lies with the entire Democratic caucus. They certainly deserve to be criticized for it. But it’s hard to single Obama (or anyone other individual Senator) out on this one. To the extent that this will determine your vote, the best option is to look to another party.

So long as we’re playing the lesser evil game, however, I think Obama is a lot lesser than many other leading Democrats. He did vote against the Military Commissions Act, even if he didn’t filibuster it. In the context of a party one-fifth of whose Senatorial candidates this year voted in favor of torture, Barack Obama looks like a profile in courage.

But I’m totally sympathetic with the view that settling for “at least he doesn’t actually favor torture” is pretty thin political gruel.

[…] FWIW, if Obama’s running he’s really running for Vice President. Far from blunting the Hillary machine, he’ll reinforce it. […]

Added Obama bonus: He’s the Antichrist!

Hey, there’s a handbook for leaving the country. Don’t forget to vote FIRST.

the Antichrist would make a fine VP candidate for Cthulhu

Telling the truth—that the intelligence they were shown was “fixed”—is apparently not a good idea in BradWorld.

And, truth to tell, I wish some of them had started doing it sooner.

But Obama got his balls cut off and stuffed in his mouth in his encounter with McCain. And he’s been useless since.

He’s a great guy, and he has the right pedigree for the NYT (CC ’83, Harvard Law), but that doesn’t make him anything more than someone who will lose 49 states (he might win Hawaii) against McCain or Rudy—or 45 to the worst civil servant in history (her platform: I was the National Security Advisor who ignored the threat of 9/11 and the Secretary of State for the worst run wars in U.S. history).

Other than style points, I have seen little in Obama that would engender enought trust in me to vote for him in a primary. He’s shown a propensity for Joe Klein style subversion of prorgressives, has no discernible positions on key issues that occupy the base of the Democratic party and refuses to stick his neck on what does really matter. So far, all I see is a glorified gladhander with a nice schtick.

I’m sorry, you are simply wrong here. Bush contnually claimed to have still MORE intelligence (heh heh) that would make an even MORE devastating case for war. They constantly implied there was stuff they could not release.

You and I could look at what had been presented and know it was bullshit. They probably saw that too.

But its a trememendous leap of faith for them to call the presidents bluff. We could do it, we had nothing riding on it. But if they called bullshit, and it turned out Bush had something more credible (and remember a lot people thought Powells act at the UN was credible because it was Powell), that would have been it for the Democratic party. It would have been a bloodbath in the general election, with every democrat who called bullshit getting endless commercials showing their words and the pictures Rove had stored of weapon bunkers and chemical plants and missile batteries.

It was a game of chicken against a nasty, crazy driver. It really was a suckers bet, because god knows its exactly like something Rove would pull.

And there was absolutely nothing congress could have done to stop the train. Bush already has the authority to start hostilities on his own volition, almost every president last century put troops onto foreign soil without congressional authorization before hand. Their vote did not authorize war, it authorized the president to authorize war once certain “reasonable” conditions were met (which it turned out he was full of shit on, too). It was a unit vote, which actually did work to open up the country to more inspection. Unfortunately, Bush had already decided to go to war no matter what, and again, while I knew that and you knew that, it would take a lot to convince a someone that close to the government that the president could be that corrupt.

Laud the brave congress people who were willing to put their careers on the line to call bullshit. But don’t hate those who did their best to fight a rear guard action to sustain a core of Democrats in congress. They did preserve their viability, and the party’s viability, in 2002. The stupid sound bite probably didn’t sway a single vote in 2004, nor the ambivalence of the party – people knew which way they were voting long before the campaign even started, and besides, their were important issues like gay flagburning on ten commandment statues during school prayer time. The Dems lost 2004 because they were mealy mouthed on the current situtation and couldn’t (and still can’t) put out a cohesive vision of America to compete with the republican vision (religious slaves buying cheap crap, because its God’s reward).

“unity” vote

Amen, Retired Catholic. Obama is possibly the most overhyped nobody in recent political history. He will break all of these progressives hearts, because he is exactly like lieberman in wanting to appear “centrist” and “bipartisan” so he’ll get on the good TV shows to bash democrats. He’s already started this, and it will only get worse over time.

If Obama gets the nomination, I’ll vote for him. Until then, I’m in the Wes Clark camp all the way. If Hillary gets the nomination, I’m not sure what I’d do. Maybe not vote. Maybe move to Belize. Hell, maybe convert to christianity and start spouting racist hatred…

mikey

Obama may be a black Liebermanesque Satan, but he is not-Bush.

If he’s against those fuggers, I’m fer him.

Hey, I’m a liberal hawk, and I gar-on-tee that the war would have gone swimmingly if a brilliant strategist such as myself had been consulted. The administration’s mistake has been to concentrate all its forces in the Middle East. This, as everyone knows, is lunacy. One must divide forces in this theater of operations between the Middle East and Ukraine, thus preventing any opponents from controlling Asia or Europe. If you simultaneously control Kamchatka, then Asia will eventually be yours, gaining you seven extra armies per turn!

I’ve realised I should be fair about my post above. Obama had his balls chopped off and stuffed in his mouth by McCain and Lieberman.

So it was a bipartisan, Unity effort.

Btw, Bloggofascist is spot-on. There is a significant difference between telling a sitting President (no matter how disingenuous) “explore all avenues and if everything fails, we’ll support a war” and saying “don’t even think about it.”

(And, yes, I would argue that the 2002 resolution was not followed, and therefore the declaration of war was illegal. But 700K extra dead later, that seems splitting hares. Or even hairs.

Your whole post is based on the notion that the war will be relevant in the 2008 campaign.

More likely, by then everyone will be whistling loudly and saying “war? what war?”

Either that or we’ll have ten divisions tied down in Iraq, twelve divisions bleeding out in Iran and the korean penninsula united under pyongyang, a full scale draft, 22% unemployment, oil at $185.00 a barrel and martial law…

Just Sayin

mikey

Any chance that the Washington Post could recruit brand new shiny baggage-free columnists who didn’t spend their time attacking people who thought the war was a really stoopid idea? The idea that Cohen doesn’t choke on this kind of column is dispiriting.

OK, here’s a game: Could it get worse? Seriously. Is there some way that a first-term Senator with an obvious brain and, most likely, a pulse could somehow provide worse leadership than our current emperor?

People lamenting Barrack’s “lack of experience” can’t possibly believe this should disqualify him from running, can they? The guy is obviously smart and talented, what could he possibly learn in the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body that could possibly help him be a better President? The best place in the Capitol to take a nap? How to become more obtuse?

The Senate is where the gasbags and the nationally unelectable go to die.

So, say, you’re a comer with a pulse and functioning brain waves — why rot in the Senate with tainted losers like Feingold (good on Patriot Act, catered on judges), Kerry and rest? Some of you are already bemoaning the fact he didn’t single-handedly derail the torture bill with a filabuster. Four more years there won’t help.

This is really his window, while he’s still enough of a cipher and a compelling story that his experience (Chicago pol, high-profile law talkin’ guy, champ speaker, DC neophyte) is a better sell than in six more years, when he starts stinking of Potomac backwash.

I say I’d vote for a dead parrot before I’d vote Republican. It may as well be for a guy who is a fresher voice than any of the other cadavers and warmongers trying to wedge into the White House.

The problem, Major Woody, is that the islamofascists have five cards, two of which are jokers (Osama and Ahmedinejad), and we only have two armies in the Middle East attacking twenty. Our turn’s almost over, and when they cash in that set, we’re SOL.

Besides, everyone knows that trying to conquer Asia first is stoopid. The guy who takes Australia will invariably take Siam too. The guy who takes South America first will win half the time.

Barack Obama is the black John Edwards. Great guy, great speaker, not enough experience. I’d vote for him, but he’d lose to McCain. He could beat Condi though.

Hillary and Feingold are the two best choices right now as I see it. Hillary has the establishment, Feingold has the progressives. Clark has some juice but he’s already lost once. That’s going to be hard to overcome. He should’ve gotten into the race earlier for 2004.

As far as Brad’s Monday-morning quarterbacking, there’s no use trying to argue him out of it. Bloggofascist is right, at the time Bush got the benefit of the doubt because he hadn’t really screwed us yet, and credible people were saying he was right about the WMDs. Now of course we know what he’s capable of and that he was lying his ass off, but since Brad was proven right then we all have to grovel about how wrong we were and STFU and let Brad run the Progressive movement. All hail Brad, who is our rightful Dear Leader! Of course it’s not just Brad, the entire anti-Bush left feels that way. They hated Bush irrationally from the get-go; being proven right has merely vindicated their irrationality. Those of us who have only come to hate Bush later on are not pure enough to join their righteous crusade.

I’m real tired about being beaten over the head about how I was wrong to acquiesce in the invasion of Iraq before the truth about the faked-up intelligence was widely circulated. Yes, I was duped, I made a mistake in trusting these guys. Edwards (and Kerry I believe) has said as much. Now let’s fix the damn problem rather than wasting time arguing about who’s worthy to do the fixing.

“I find it very difficult to believe that smart people like Kerry and Edwards could be “fooledâ€? or “misledâ€? by the stupidest president in American history.”

He had a LOT of help, Brad. A LOT of help.

Obama is too right-wing for me.

Meanwhile in teh Librul Media:

CNN is running a survey today about how significant the “Democratic wuss factor” is, and tonight (according to a promo on NPR this morning) it’s broadcasting a “special report” called “Our Broken Government: The Democratic Party’s Two Left Feet.”

Can’t see the forest, can’t see the trees, can’t see the undergrowth or twigs or moss or slugs . . . but what about that unicorn? That one! Over there!

Hillary would get my vote for two reasons if she was the candidate:

1. Another President Clinton would make the Rightards furious.
2. The Big Dog would be Back in the White House. And this would make the Rightards HOWL.

Besides, Gary would become completely incoherent.

Wha-? *sppt!* Teh Clenis! *bllrgh!*

Punkinsmom, Notorious P.A.T. & others,

The problem as I see it is that those on the lefterly end of things often feel compelled to choose between pragmatism and principle, whereas those in rightieville have simpler options that don’t really require a choice: hmmm, incompetent or malicious? Hey, why not both!

“liberal”/rovianrob: the entire anti-Bush left … They hated Bush irrationally from the get-go …

Lemme fix that so it’s more clear:
“The left irrationally assumed that 2+2=4 from the get-go. Now just because I finally agree that they’ve been right all along doesn’t mean they can be all superior about it. Losers.”

So some of us saw through Bush a lot earlier. Irrational? No, that’s just being quicker on the uptake. Six-plus years quicker, actually. Bush couldn’t sell a used car, but managed to sell so-called liberals on an atrocity. It would be hilarious if not for the stench of over half a million corpses.

Tired of being beaten over the head? Then don’t buy into laughably bad lies next time. Sheesh.

Wesley Clark gets my respect for fighting for Lamont. And Al Gore gets my respect for taking so much abuse about global warming, and being right.

So those are my first choices. Followed by any Democrat is better than a Republican, because the Republicans just spent the last five years proving they can’t even be trusted to be merely be mildly incompetent, corrupt screwups.

Funny, until a week ago Hilary stood alone as the expected ’08 nominee in a field of also-rans. Everywhere you looked, Hilary, Hilary, Hilary. Now the Pundettes are obsessed with Obama. Know what happened in between? Polls started showing that Hilary could potentially kick McCain’s ass.

At this point, I’d vote for a potato if I thought it had a chance of beating the Republican machine. I don’t think we can afford to be too picky with candidates.

This is all assuming there’s going to *be* and election in 2008.

With regards to cutting and running from staying the course, apparently they forgot to tell Laura.

Even my mom supports Obama, and she was *for* the war before she was against it. This is the same person who was screaming at me for opposing the war before it began.

She and my dad unceremoniously took down their photos of GW and Laura early this year. It seems that even the religously insane have seen the light…

Cohen is right. The votes were political, not courageous. There was never any threat to the U.S. and they all knew it.

However, he is holding Kerry et al. to a higher standard than he holds his own sorry ass. He has bought into Bush’s moronic pronouncements from the beginning (ie before the 2000 election) with, rarely, only the most cursory of caveats.

I wrote to Diane Feinstein in March 2003, who now blames her pro-war vote on being “misled” by Bush and Co. Back then, she replied that, due to her special role defending the country in her high level place on the rarified Senate Intelligence Committee, she had special knowledge (which she couldn’t share with me, just a common citizen) that led her to know that war with Iraq was necessary for the defense of our country.

Flip-flop, flip-flop. Until the next military adventurist opportunity, which as a “centrist” Dem, she’s sure to support as well….

Obama also voted for the Republican bankruptcy bill; so I guess he’s good to go with funding from the credit card companies. This guy has never put himself on the line for others. His ambition far exceeds his commitment to progressive causes. Charisma is worthless without character.

MCH sez:
“Lemme fix that so it’s more clear:
“The left irrationally assumed that 2+2=4 from the get-go.”

You fixed my words just like BushCo “fixed” the intelligence. Because you didn’t read what I said, you read what you wanted to see. You and Brad start from the position that anyone who didn’t automatically assume Bush was lying starting January 21, 2000 is an idiot. BUSH was the one saying 2+2=4 and therefore we must invade Iraq. The fact that 2 wasn’t really 2 didn’t come out until later. But that doesn’t matter to you. The mere fact that I didn’t hate Bush with a passion until after I found out he’d lied to us is enough for you to lump me in with the most brain-dead, blindly loyal Bush apologists. Which is bullshit. But you go ahead and believe what you want. As long as we both wind up voting Democratic in the end is all that matters right now. We’ll work on the irrationality later, after we’ve made a “later” possible.

Screw Cohen — he bought the shit from the “stupid” Bush, so why couldn’t Kerry, Edwards and others have?

No, I don’t buy the “we were bamboozled by Bush” excuse either.

Those of us against the war in 2002-3 were not stupid either. We read about Hans Blix’ statements. We noticed that there was “no there there.” If we were all that smart, why was Feingold so dumb?

Powell’s stupid UN report was fisked by responsible people who had expertise in WMDs the day after it was made. Can’t these people read anything not handed on a platter to them by Rove for heaven’s sake? Why do we elect them if they just blindly do what the opposition party president tells them to? They have no way of getting other info besides his? Their staffers, what do they do exactly, play RPGs on the internet? What about independent research?

And why was she so blindly trusting such a partisan, cuckoo admin as the Bush one, which even at the time was extremely weird and extreme?

And what about the fact that there was NEVER a connection between 9/11 and Saddam and all the Congresspeople KNEW that at least?

No, I don’t buy it. Sorry. But in order to get Bush out, if I had to I would vote for Feinstein and the other moral nihilists over a republican. I am glad my senator voted against so it was easier for me to vote without feeling like throwing up.

BUSH was the one saying 2+2=4 and therefore we must invade Iraq. The fact that 2 wasn’t really 2 didn’t come out until later.

That’s the thing: the answer “4” was out there. One example: Scott Ritter.

September 9, 2002, CNN:

“Iraq is not a sponsor of the kind of terror perpetrated against the United States on September 11 and in fact is active in suppressing the sort of fundamental extremism that characterizes those who attacked the United States on that horrible day,” [Former U.N. weapons inspector Scott] Ritter said. …

… In his address Sunday, Ritter denied that Iraq possessed any weapons of mass destruction but acknowledged that concerns exist about the country’s weapons programs.

“These concerns are almost exclusively technical in nature and do not overcome the reality that Iraq, during nearly seven years of continuous inspection activity by the United Nations, had been certified as being disarmed to a 90 [percent] to 95 percent level,” he said.

He warned that if the United States unilaterally launches any military action against Iraq, it would “forever change the political dynamic which has governed the world since the end of the second World War, namely the foundation of international law as set forth in the United Nations charter, which calls for the peaceful resolution of problems between nations.”

The mere fact that I didn’t hate Bush with a passion until after I found out he’d lied to us is enough for you to lump me in with the most brain-dead, blindly loyal Bush apologists.

Not true. You’re clearly not a blindly loyal Bush apologist if you’re on the “war was wrong” page. But when you supported his war, you lumped yourself in with that crowd—which, as you found, was a bad place to go.

Now, despite the fact that you’re flipping verbal birds at us, I say welcome back. Just try not to be so mad at us for not having been as wrong as you were.

I dunno. I’ve never been much for toldjasoes, in either direction. And maybe I’m not so smart. I believed Iraq had Chemical Weapons (I’ve never bought into CW as WMD – CW is a borderline useless battlefield weapon, not a city killer), but I didn’t care. So did most of the industrial nations. I was simply against attacking/invading/occupying a nation that hadn’t attacked us. When hitler attacked france, it was wrong, and we went to war. When North Korea invaded South Korea, it was wrong, and we went to war. When Iraq occupied Kuwait, it was wrong and we went to war. Now, all of a sudden, WE’RE gonna be the aggressive, invading nation? We’re going to voluntarily end the peace and intiate hostilities with a nation that hasn’t done anything and isn’t a threat to us? That ain’t us. That ain’t america. And weapons or not, that’s why I opposed the war from the start. And why I continue to oppose the war in iraq and the upcoming wars with iran and norkor…

mikey

Clark/Edwards or Edwards/Clark would have been my dream ticket, especially if an “unknown” quantity was considered (and despite either of their stances regarding Iraq – Edwards conceded his error, Clark’s approach I think was exhaust all other options first). I like what I’ve heard from Barrack on the whole, though as an atheist he dips into the religionist well a little too much for my taste but that’s just me. I am also not a fan of Hillary and would see her selection/nomination as a sign that the old party machinery still doesn’t get it. She seems too calculating and I try to figure out my aversion to her because I was reasonably pleased with Bill Clinton (all things considered). Though all mentioned seem to have an enthusiastic base, are their negatives too substantial to draw sufficiently beyond that? Does it matter at all if no one has seriously dealt with the election fraud issue? Proof (for my money at least) that the GOP is knowingly orchestrating the fraud, is that they are not concerned with crooked elections LOSING votes for them.

Of course, the war vote did get the UN weapon’s inspectors back in. Who knew that the idiot king would throw out weapon’s inspectors and send troops in their place.

I don’t think that any of us could have known Bush would be that evil and careless with the lives of our troops.

Liberals should move on from the war vote and remember that it is Bush who threw out inspectors to start war.

Would we have gotten inspectors back in without that vote? I am not so sure. Keeping weapons inspectors there could have kept us out of the war.

Like I said, I thought I knew the war was bullshit, because I knew the first war was bullshit, and kept up with the details. But go back and read what was being said at the time. Bush totally bluffed. Or maybe he believed it because he was being bluffed by the smarter neocons.

In any case, would you have been willing to risk giving the president a 65%-75% majority by advocating the president didn’t have a case for war, and then getting something sprung on you during the elections?

The Administration worked from the position of plausibility. Did they have an ace up their sleeve? It sure sounded like it.

So why take the risk on what was really a meaningless vote? Again, not one of you critics has come up with a plausible scenario where the war could have been stopped by congressional action. Because there is no scenario where that could have happened. None. Zilch. Nada. Na Ga Happen.

And as a person who was on the side of the angels with this, who did tell a buddy not to join the guard as soson as Bush was elected because I knew he’d send us back to Iraq, who stayed home to watch Powell’s speech live, who watched every Ritter and Blix interview, and who knew Bush was lying about everything that was being put forth; please, don’t fuck with the people who were fooled. They spent a LOT of money and effort to fool people. They invented new intelligence branches. They got the media to whore for them, including the NYT and WP. They hurled out tons of bullshit in the form of reports and dissidents and recon. They made clear their intention to smear anyone who got in their way.

The only plausible way this war could have been prevented is if Blix had come back with a final report saying “There is conclusively nothing in Iraq.”, and then maybe Britain and Australia would have said farewell to the “Coalition of the Willing” That is what the vote gave an opportunity to happen. And that is why the bush adminstration invaded before such a final conclusion could be made, ordering Blix out, and going so fast they left a whole division sitting in ships en route for Turkey.

So please, enough with the stupid need to bash Democrats for not being democratic enough. Their choice was, very simply:

“Vote against the president and risk the entire party, knowing that the vote will not tie the presidents hands in anyway.”

or

“Vote for the authority, since it is already is his to take anyway, and maybe, just maybe, the inspectors will be able to prove the war isn’t necessary”

“From turkey”…sigh

At this point I really would vote for an avocado if it was running against whoever the repubs put up, but I wouldn’t be especially happy about it. And that’s my concern looking forward to ’08: I want a candidate I can get really excited about, but so far I don’t see him/her/it.

I’ve heard some options: Clark, Edwards, Obama, Feingold . . . but so far I’m not hearing any full-throated, wholehearted support for anybody. So here’s my question: are any of you seeing a candidate at this point who really feels like precisely the leader we need? Or are these guys just the best we can come up with?

I want me some political passion, dammit.

Me gusta el Bloggo-fa-sheezmo. I get smarter AND more cynical the more I spend on S,N!

the longer Obama stays in the Senate, the less of a chance he has of getting a fair run at the presidency, because the best campaigns in American politics are run by empty vessels.

Anna in Portland (formerly Cairo) said,
“No, I don’t buy the “we were bamboozled by Bushâ€? excuse either.”

That’s too bad. I guess you won’t let me be in your movement then. Can I vote for your candidates, or would you see my votes as hypocritical? Would you rather I voted for Republicans?

“Those of us against the war in 2002-3 were not stupid either.”

Never said you were. I was not an enthusiastic supporter myself. I felt we were moving too quickly and without sufficient global support; but I trusted the administration when they said they had conclusive proof of dangerous weapons programs. They lied. And I trusted them to run a benevolent occupation. They went in like the Nazis in the Ukraine in 1941 and screwed it up. They inflicted the greatest strategic blunder in our history on us (saving perhaps only Vietnam, and then only because we haven’t lost over 50,000 of our own people…yet).

“And why was she so blindly trusting such a partisan, cuckoo admin as the Bush one, which even at the time was extremely weird and extreme?”

Perhaps because the “cuckoo, weird and extremely extreme” parts hadn’t been proven yet?

“And what about the fact that there was NEVER a connection between 9/11 and Saddam and all the Congresspeople KNEW that at least?”

I don’t think the Congresspeople voted based primarily on the false linkages between Saddam and 9/11. The primary justification of the invasion was that Saddam had WMDs and was working to make more. Which were lies.

“I am glad my senator voted against so it was easier for me to vote without feeling like throwing up.”

You’re lucky. I’m stuck with Kay Bailey Hutchinson and John Cornyn. I throw up all the time thinking about them “representing” me. Ron Kirk got my vote in 2004, Barbara Ann Radnofsky gets it this year. Neither one having much of a chance of winning then or now. But what else can I do.

See Alex Cockburns’ April 26th column. Concerns Obama campaigning in Ct. for Lieberman. Then see how you feel about him.

OT, but why do people talk about Karl Rove as if he were smart? I just heard his interview on NPR and after I ralphed all over my steering wheel I was struck by what a thick-skulled dolt he is. Why, he’s just Rush O’Reilly, pure and simple. OK, not pure. But simple.

Clinton v. Obama? Pshaw, it is to yawn. The race I’ve got my eye on is Potato v. Avocado. Will this be the race that’s tears Sadlynaughts apart? I shudder to think. *shudder*

Now c’mon folks, let’s try to stay close inshore to reality. They’re politicians. This ain’t a saints and martyrs convention. In this day of Too Much Information ™, you’re never likely to pull the lever for somebody you like and respect 100%. Those guys get chewed up by the process. So let’s think in terms of selection criteria.

1.) Is this candidate likely to leave the Constitution the way it was written?

2.) Is this candidate likely to constrain their more rapacious impulses while in office?

3.) Is this candidate likely to contribute to American Peace and Prosperity?

4.) Does this candidate espouse views about/towards people like me that are more closely aligned with mine than the opposing candidate?

5.) Does this candidate seem to have the minimum courage and will required to give at least as much effort to representing me as s/he does to getting reelected?

I just threw those out there off the top of my head. I’m sure we can come up with a working guideline by 11/7…

mikey

Oh, I know, mikey. As always, the person who gets a “yes” on each of your five questions will get my vote. But I’m thinking that now ought to be the time for a real leader who will go beyond the satisfactory level on those (and other) questions. I can’t help thinking it’s what we really need in order to not only get through the current shitstorm but truly rise above it. I’m hoping, dreaming, dare I say yearning, for a candidate who will:

1) forcefully defend the Constitution and insist upon restoring it immediately

2) demonstrate unequivocally that he/she/it is not the point and that acquisition of power is the means, not the end

3) declare the peace, now, and demand that an equal opportunity to prosper is the right of individuals, not corporations

4) insist that the preamble to the Constitution is the guiding principle which government must live up to

5) um . . . see #2, I guess

I know that in part I’m asking for a candidate who will make me feel good about my country again, and that’s perhaps a selfish request. But at the same time, I can’t help feeling that we won’t take the country back if our candidates are merely closer to a passing grade than their opponents are . . . I’m not trying to be unreasonable here. I’m just wondering: are there really no heroes?

tigrismus, although my last post may give the impression that I’ve not lost my youthful idealism, I just want to take this opportunity to say: avocado ’08!!11!

Please stop shuddering. You’re making my monitor quake.

Liberal rob: What’s with the “let you be in my movement” thing? Whose movement and which one? I already said I am going to hold my nose and vote for all Dems this election, and already sent in my ballot, what more do those who were egregiously wrong in 2003 want? A pat on the back?

Scott Ritter was out there. Joe Wilson was out there. Hans Blix was out there. Feingold had a responsibility to look at other sources of info than Bush. Taht she did not was an abdication of her own responsibility. Look liberalrob. You may also have bought into Bush’s lies and resent being called on it. But you were not a US congressperson and did not make an important decision based on it so it does not mean a lot that you were wrong. On the contrary it means a whole lot to me that these people in congress who were in the opposition party made NO effort to get alternate sources than the very same admin that STOLE THE ELECTION from them in 2000 (why trust them?). Are you seriously telling me they should not have doubted Bush’s admin for a second? What exactly did bush do that should have inspired trust?

I have lived in the Middle East for the past 13 years and you know what, this whole Iraq war thing has screwed up the entire region for the foreseeable future. All this insular US talk about how little the vote for war meant, is because it does not affect you in your particular state all that much except when the price of oil goes up a bit. 650,000 civilians dead in Iraq but Democratic hawks are just fine and dandy.

Really, what upsets me is that being right about something is seen as so uncool. No one likes to be told “i told you so” but aren’t you supposed to be mature grownups? Deal with it because you were really wrong and a lot of people knew it at the time.

Sure, you can admit you were horribly wrong and did not read alternate views which were there, which I am sure everyone appreciates, just don’t make lame-ass excuses for US congresspeople taking the path of least resistance and thereby becoming complicit in the war crime that is the invasion of Iraq. In case you missed it a lot of people went out in the streets and protested the beginning of the war because they knew there were no WMD and because they knew it was totally morally wrong.

I hate these types of arguments. And I am sorry you have to vote for a prowar dem and I already told you I would have done the same this election because anything to get an opposition control of congress. And I hope you still think we are on the same side here. But we do not have to pretend they did the right thing or that they can’t have been expected to do otherwise in 2003.

I still don’t think I can hold my nose tightly enough to vote for anyone who acquiesced on MCA. Other than that, the Dems get my vote.

Not that I’m particularly proud of voting my fears instead of my hopes, but if you aren’t scared, then you aren’t paying attention (to steal a phrase).

I just don’t know how I can vote for anyone who’s pro-torture and anti-habeas corpus. I don’t know how *anyone* can vote that way, but that’s a separate question.

I haven’t been too impressed with Obama. He gives a pretty good speech, but he’s been thoroughly mediocre as a senator and came out looking like a wuss in his dustup with Saint McCain. His chance of being elected president is exactly 0.0%.

I am personally pulling for an Al Gore candidacy. Gore is electable– hell, he’s already been elected once, and he’s learned a lot since then. He’s already been through the smear machine and has come out relatively unscathed, and he has discovered a backbone in recent years. He’d win if he ran.

JK47, Gore has actually been elected three times, if you count twice as VP (where he was distinctly not a traditionally invisible second banana) and once when Scalia said no. Here’s my thing with Gore: I think he’s very good, and that he’s gotten better since the 2000 ugliness. I admire his willingness to speak his mind, which is particularly refreshing in comparison to most other Dem contenders. He’s smart as hell, which is great from my point of view but apparently not so great for huge swaths of America (sidebar: WTF is up with that? we actually want dumb leaders?). So the downside with Al seems to be the Hillary factor in all its weird permutations . . . but I think he’s significantly further left than either Bill or Hillary, so maybe if he communicated that more clearly? Who knows . . .

couldn’t obama have kept his pants on for a few more weeks?

Jillian, even in my most pragmatic, we-must-beat-the-GOP moments, I could never disagree with you that the line must be drawn at approving torture and pissing on habeas corpus. Better not to vote in a contest with two candidates who support MCA2006.

Obama dropped trou? What did I miss? I do so try to keep current.

I’m one of Obama’s constituents, and I think he’s kind of an empty suit. I would vote for Dick Durbin for President. He isn’t a great thinker, but he can be brought to Jesus and he always votes the right way (even if it takes some prodding sometimes). However, I doubt he’d draw a lot of votes outside IL.

The Dem have talent for nominating for POTUS
someone who can’t win.
Going back to Mondale.

Hillary is a good senator and would perhaps make
a bot POTUS , but she could never get elected.

I predicted Kerry would lose , the guy was to boooooring

I’d vote for Obama.. a great talent and a better
chance to get elected than Hillary or Kerry or
any one else in the field ……so far.

There’s always the Socialist candidate, Mort.

I’ve got one independent candidate on the ballot that seems tolerable enough, so I don’t have to write in “any human being on the planet other than Katherine Harris or Bill Nelson, please”.

I’d vote for Obama.. a great talent

At what, exactly? Giving a feel-good speech at the Dem convention in 2004? Look, I just explained to you how a lot of his constituency feel about Obama. Why don’t you explain your position?

I’d vote for Obama.. a great talent

At what, exactly? Giving a feel-good speech at the Dem convention in 2004? Look, I just explained to you how a lot of his constituency feel about Obama. Why don’t you explain your position?

At the risk of sounding cynical, just exactly what talent do politics require? They don’t have to be executive managers, they have staff and a chief of staff for that. They don’t have to be legislators, they have legislative analysts and legislative assistants for that. Their job is to get elected. Give good speeches, good tv, look good in a suit, be inexhaustable and stoic. Keep real emotions hidden. All we need in them is that they share our political views to the greatest extent possible, and that they refrain from selling out completely until after they leave office. That is their job, their role, their calling. No other “talent” is required, or even particularly desireable…

mikey

Plus his name sounds like that Battlestar Gallactica general’s. And he’s no pussy.

The only thing I don’t like about Obama is he’s been much too polite around the opposition. I’d like to see him get angry for once, but he’s always so congenial…like he disagrees but nothing ruffles his feathers. That bugs me. He should be a little more like Barney Frank and let ’em have it.

But, anything to ensure Hillary is not leader. Her pro-war, pro-torture stance make her entirely unsuitable as a leader.

liberalrob said,
You and Brad start from the position that anyone who didn’t automatically assume Bush was lying starting January 21, 2000 is an idiot.

Well, this is a snark-heavy site. That means people will be insulted and feelings will be hurt.

A whole lot of us saw through BushCo’s lies from the beginning. (Gore won the 2000 popular vote, remember?) There was nothing “automatic” about it; it was a reasonable conclusion that any reasonable person could have made after examing the huge discrepencies between BushCo’s words and actual accomplishments. He, and his supporters, lied. They didn’t lie well enough to fool us, but they fooled you.

See, this

“BUSH was the one saying 2+2=4 and therefore we must invade Iraq. The fact that 2 wasn’t really 2 didn’t come out until later. ”

Wrong again. As someone else pointed out above, Hans Blix was saying it all along. So was, oh, I don’t know, the entire rest of the fucking world.

“But that doesn’t matter to you.”

You’re right. I don’t give a damn whether YOU bought the lies or not. This thread was about Democrats in congress.

“The mere fact that I didn’t hate Bush with a passion until after I found out he’d lied to us is enough for you to lump me in with the most brain-dead, blindly loyal Bush apologists. Which is bullshit. But you go ahead and believe what you want. As long as we both wind up voting Democratic in the end is all that matters right now. ”

Fair point. That you were easily fooled doesn’t lump you in with “the most brain-dead, blindly loyal Bush apologists.” It merely makes you an enabler, and it means you should have known better. But you admit you were wrong (clear evidence that you are not a Bushite) and want to move on and that’s just fine. No bullshit.

“We’ll work on the irrationality later, after we’ve made a “laterâ€? possible.”

See, here’s where I have a huge problem- that “irrationality” meme. THAT is an insult. It is direct and personal. When you say it, you are saying, “So, you were right, but you are crazy.” Fuck that.

It’s like this: we knew this guy was lying about everything, from his business dealings to his personal history, before the election of 2000. Texas Democrats knew it long before this.

We knew this guy was capable of saying anything to smear anyone in the most offensive ways imaginable. He did this against McCain in NC. He did this against Ann Richards in ’96. He’s doing it now.

We knew he would give away the store to the energy “traders,” at the expense of all other industry in America.

We knew this guy was either lying about his religious conversion, cynically faking his piety to manipulate the bible-thumpers, or he was really genuinely in with them, which made him dangerous to American freedom and national security.

We knew all this before the 2000 election- and then we watched him steal that election.

So, if you know someone is a liar and a thief who will stop at nothing to aggrandize himself, subvert democracy itself, and destroy anyone in his way… is it “IRRATIONAL” to hate the bastard?

That’s my point (I know, took me long enough to get there): By calling us irrational, when our intense dislike of this asshole was in fact justified from the beginning, then you are being far more insulting than Brad or anyone else saying, “I told you so. Idiot.”

That YOU, a supposed Democrat, have twice repeated a GOP-bred meme (irrational Bush hatred) makes you look like you are STILL believing their lies.

Which is irrational: hating a liar and thief, or repeating the mantra that the liar’s supporters are constantly chanting?

Maybe you’re not being irrational with your “irrational Bush hatred” remarks. Maybe you really are just an idiot.

Or a concern troll?

mikey, the only thing I really disagree with in your latest is that the POTUS should keep his/her/its emotions hidden. I think not. I think the POTUS should actually have visceral reactions to things and should share them. But those reactions should be based on principle and thought . . . which is why (pillory me at will here) I think Clinton was actually a good president. The quality that earned him the sobriquet “first black president” was exactly that: the tendency to tell it like he saw it — after using his considerable intellect to sort through what “it” was, of course.

Wow… Seeing as I don’t get a vote for the President or in November, I ain’t exactly in a good position to tell you how to vote. So I shall do so anyways 😉

Would I vote for someone who voted for the MCA2006? Well, if it made a difference between a GOP Senate and a Dem Senate (or House for that matter), I very well might do so, no matter how much it disgusted me. In the winner take all GOP politics practiced south of the border, 50 Democratic Senators don’t amount to a hill o beans. 51 on the other hand turn the game entirely around.

(Of course, I cynically worry that George Bush under oversight would make an even worse president than he does without one. )

But hey, that’s my call. That’s how I would vote. Maybe it is a recipe for continued disaster. I don’t know. I’d rather try something that has a hope for ending the insanity in Washington rather than a course that will definitely not. But then it’s my imaginary vote. Yours is yours. Whatever anyone does south of the border, I hope that choice isn’t made lightly and turns out for the best. God knows we need it to.

On a side note: I am tempted to condemn 70% Americans for not questioning the administration’s rhetoric on Iraq, but I cannot. While I believe that there was ample evidence that contradicted Administration claims about Saddam and 9/11 and the WMD issue, it wasn’t exactly front page news. I remember the Winter of 2003 quite well. Week after week there was one announcement after another about how big a threat Saddam was and how he was going to kill everybody next week. Of course, since I watch both Canadian and American TV, I could reality check some of the doozies easily. But people were afraid and ate it up that they had to go into Iraq, lest something dreadful happen.

Should the Media and the Senate (the Dems in Particular) done a better job? Did some, like Kerry, worry too much about the political price of being against a war that everybody thought would be a repeat of the Gulf War? Hell yeah. Does that make their actions criminal? Not in my book. I think that their judgment failed, or that they worried more about what would happen in 2004 instead of what would happen to innocent civilians. At worst they were enablers, at best they had a chance to stand on principle and chose not to do so. While I may not love them for it, I believe that the true criminals are those who perpetrated the crime and those who ensured that no hard questions were asked.

Barack will never be able to overcome the melanin issue, not on a national slate. The country is just not there yet, and wishing won’t make it so.

Hillary might stand a chance if she had a Y chromosome.

Sometimes I hate realpolitik.

Quick, somebody bring teh funny!!!

His Grace speaks truth, and I know for me, I am better off for the clarity offered. Thanks.

Mortician. Understand, that was not a recomendation. I don’t think a politician *should* hide his emotions. I’m saying it’s a required skill for the job. And you gotta agree, you couldn’t get elected if you started getting honest, y’know?

mikey

You guys watching the baseball game? You see that Chevy has run TWO spanish-language comercials on the mainstream audio feed? Ohh, some wingnuts (PingPong? I’m looking at you) are gonna be pissed!!

mikey

Baseball broadcast thing. Can’t relate. No TV. Over-n-out.

Anyway, yeah, mikey, I get it. I just wish I didn’t. I mean, that was the whole fraggin’ point of the other stuff I was saying. I desperately want the truth to be relevant. Dream world, yadda yadda. I know.

Ok liberalrob, let’s try it this way.
You were fooled. Others were not. Those others showed their interpretive capacities to be greater than yours. Instead of getting mad at us for not making the same mistake you did, perhaps you might want to ask yourself why you were so gullible in the first place?
Also, maybe those who were right all along have something on you, like say an acquired immunity to ad campaigns?
If you want in the oh so exclusive club, redirect your anger. Towards yourself. That’s where it belongs, not with those who had the capacity to recognize fairly obvious lies.

This is unfair. Kerry says he voted for the President to have the leeway to use force, not for the actual decision to go to war. That’s a respectable position. It was wrong, perhaps even foolish, but it is not disingenuous. There is no point echoing Republicans’ inane critiques of any position more complicated than “Kill ’em all!” or “US out now!” Democrats are supposed to be the party that understands nuance. In this case, Kerry’s position was both nuanced and wrong; it was an inappropriate situation for nuance. But it’s unfair and objectively pro-Republican to accuse Kerry of fibbing when he describes a nuanced stance.

Look, Kerry ran a pretty mediocre campaign, and part of his problem was his inability to embrace a clear and consistent message. But that is a campaigning error, not a policy or character error. The reaction to Kerry’s statement “I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it” is a classic example of how perfectly reasonable and rational, intelligent and honorable behavior can be made to seem wishy-washy and vaguely dishonest in the idiotic atmosphere of an election campaign. After all, “I was for it before I was against it” is another way of saying “After additional evidence came in, I reevaluated my views and changed my mind”. God forbid we should have a President capable of such a thing!

Dammit. OK here, I’ll do it.

Quoting Dave Letterman:

If we can put a man on the moon… why can’t we put a man on Condoleezza Rice?

Anna in Portland posted:

“why was Feingold so dumb?”

?? He never voted for going into Iraq.

Mikey and Smiling Mortician: Try answering Russ Feingold to your questions 1 through 5. 🙂

Notorious P.A.T. said,

I mean, just because in the last century exactly 2 Democrats who weren’t born in the South won the presidency. . .

For values of “exactly 2” equalling 4: Wilson, FDR, Truman and JFK

zett,

Yeah, I keep waiting for Feingold to take the national stage and start giving people what for. I’ve never thought he was dumb — but now I’m wondering why he doesn’t just get all alpha about it, you know? Take charge.

Support for the war pre-invasion was just over 50% if I recall correctly. The idea of GulfWar II was never popular. Many, many Dems voted wrongly for fear of being seen as unpatriotic or weak on defense/terror. Kerry may be the worst offender in that he was trying to get cover for voting against Gulf War I so he could be a “serious” presidential candidate.

There were many outlets where an informed citizen could have found out the “truth” concern Iraq and WMD’s and ties to Al Qaeda. Even without the specifics, a reasonable person should have seen this as a snow job.

1) Osama bin Laden escapes from Tora Bora
2) WMD – the adminstration doesn’t focus on nuculear weapons but the ubiqutous WMD which includes both mustard gas and botulism
3) Cheney is running around the Sunday shows telling everyone he knows where the weapons are. Meanwhile Hans Blix is saying call me because we are not finding any. The inspectors then have to leave the country since we need to get our war on
4) Iraq was a secular socialist state who had fought a bloody war with their theocratic neighbors. Not exactly likely to get in bed with a group intent on restoring the caliphate
5) When talking about Iraqi ties to terrorism the US only had payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (includes about every gov’t in the Middle East) and the fact an anti-Iranian group was in Iraq in the region above the no fly zone controlled by Kurds. Oh and Atta was in Prague.
6) The hijackers were Saudis. Saudi Arabia is the number one financier and exporter of wahabi clerics and militant Islamic groups. Instead of getting tough with Saudi Arabia there is Bandar advising the president.

I have no interest in rubbing pro-war Dems noses in it but all this talk about lets move on is dangerous. A full and thorough accounting of pre-invasion intelligence and post-invasion operations is necessary. Administration officials need to be called up to the hill and be so completely disgraced that they never work in government again. (several of them should be sent to prison) Republicans need to be made toxic on issues of national security. I am sorry if some pro-war Dems get their feelings hurt by being reminded of how wrong they were but they need to suck it up. Republicans have been operating a “office of special plans’ in each administration since at least Ford. Democrats learn about their malfeasance but since many of them were caught up in the project they have no desire for a full accounting. Trying to forget the past or even worse re-write it gives the country a muddled history. As a result the same nefarious group that brought you Iran-Contra is allowed to come back for an encore with Gulf War II.

This generation needs our ‘While England Slept’ and names need to be named and bad actors punished. Then the next administration that says ‘trust us’ will need to meet a higher standard than Colin Powell at the UN.

I do support a unilateral war against the molemen and agree that maintaining a large force in both Brazil and Siam is the key to controlling the world.

Well historian, prior to the War, polls ran about 50ish in favour, thirty against. But once the troops were sent in, that number shot up to 70% iirc. And yeah, I’ll agree with you, there was plenty of evidence that a person could find that ran contrary to the whoppers the administration was telling. Here’s the thing in which I rest my crux of my argument: People didn’t go looking for it though. 9/11 had put America in a state of fear, a feeling that the US could get attacked. Pretty much every American Television channel I watched in 2002- March 2003 was blaring out Administration talking points about how Saddam was 45 Minutes Away from nuking Plains, Georgia. Did rational people question this? Yes. But they were routinely demonized as weak willed peaceniks (at best) and treasonous terrorist appeasing surrender monkeys (at worst). The government was seen as the good big strong daddy protector that the American Public needed. It occurred to only a minority of Americans that the government might be lying their asses off for their own ends completely unrelated to catching the bastard who was behind 9/11.

Please note: Do not misinterpret my words for a “move on” or “let it go” argument. Hell, I think the only way out of Iraq is a clear examination of how the US got in there in the first place. I am just explaining why I don’t hold it against the American Public for buying into it.

Did I mention that exactly two men in the last 100 years have won the presidency as Democrats that weren’t from the South?

Clark has some juice but he’s already lost once. That’s going to be hard to overcome

Yeah, Ronald Reagan had that exact problem, and it’s probably what prevented him from ever becoming president. Richard Nixon too.

Sorry, sorry, sorry! Wrong fein. I think I was thinking of Feinstein. I am really sorry for mixing them up. Actually I do like Russ Feingold. Any chance of him running for prez? He at least has a fair bit of experience.

“But if they called bullshit, and it turned out Bush had something more credible (and remember a lot people thought Powells act at the UN was credible because it was Powell), that would have been it for the Democratic party….”

What Bloggofascist said.

Oh, and put me down for Clark (and I WILL enthusiastically support Hillary if she wins the nomination) and “potatoe” (homage to Dan Quayle)!

Why the fixation on the Senate as source for candidates? If anything the last few decades has shown us is that Senators make baaad candidates, too much wishy-washy rhetoric and “I voted against it before I voted for it” crap. Look at our last 2 Democratic Presidents: Clinton and Carter, what (besides being Southern by the grace of dog) do they have in common? Both were governors, granted from Southern states, but they had executive experience. In’ 08, fuggitabout the Senate, look to the Western governors for a good mine, personally I’m thinking Bill Richardson, Brian Schweitzer, or Brad Henry (depending on how that election turns out) on my short list.

A little late to the party here, but not only did Obama not vote for the bankruptcy bill, he also voted against cloture (e.g., for a fillibuster).

There’s an Obama backlash right now, based on some perceived notion that he hasn’t been an all-conquering Hero of the Left. He’s a second-year senator in the minority party, for chrissakes. Reserve a little judgment.

Historian nailed it. There’s a lot of Democrats out there giving themselves a mea culpa, politicians and voters alike, who would like to believe they were bamboozled. It’s easier on the conscience, but it’s nowhere near the neighborhood of reality. The facts in play said there was no reasonable case to go to war with Iraq, only speculation and guessing. Not to mention the entirely new concept of “pre-emptive aggression” coming from the shores of the land of the free and the home of the brave. They got scared, and they got jobbed by the thinking that opposing this act of naked aggression was the only way to NOT seem soft on terra. It’s the most unamerican thing I’ve seen in my lifetime, and I’m disgraced by it. No matter where you stood at the beginning, you should be disgraced, too,

Reagan ran against an incumbent President in 1978. Nixon had to “reinvent” himself for his 1968 run, after losing in 1960 and not being around to kick for a while. And I don’t think you want to equate Clark with Reagan and Nixon, do you?

Smiling Mortician said:
“I keep waiting for Feingold to take the national stage and start giving people what for. I’ve never thought he was dumb — but now I’m wondering why he doesn’t just get all alpha about it, you know? Take charge.”

He’s put himself out there a couple of times. But he got almost zero support from his colleagues, and the “gang of 14” and their stupid gentleman’s agreement not to make waves in the Senate have ensured that he gets no traction. Also, he’s not Paul Wellstone, I’ve never seen him thundering away in righteous indignation. He seems to just calmly and coolly go about dismembering the opposition. My kind of guy.

We do need more Paul Wellstone types on our team.

Are people afraid that he (Feingold) will not be electable because he’s Jewish? Like the whole Kennedy thing about how a Catholic could never get elected?

I think the way the political spectrum has been framed Feingold is too “liberal” for most people, even though nothing could be further from the truth. But the truth is irrelevant, electability is not.

historian said:
“There were many outlets where an informed citizen could have found out the “truthâ€? concern Iraq and WMD’s and ties to Al Qaeda. Even without the specifics, a reasonable person should have seen this as a snow job.

1) Osama bin Laden escapes from Tora Bora
2) WMD – the adminstration doesn’t focus on nuculear weapons but the ubiqutous WMD which includes both mustard gas and botulism
3) Cheney is running around the Sunday shows telling everyone he knows where the weapons are. Meanwhile Hans Blix is saying call me because we are not finding any. The inspectors then have to leave the country since we need to get our war on
4) Iraq was a secular socialist state who had fought a bloody war with their theocratic neighbors. Not exactly likely to get in bed with a group intent on restoring the caliphate
5) When talking about Iraqi ties to terrorism the US only had payments to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (includes about every gov’t in the Middle East) and the fact an anti-Iranian group was in Iraq in the region above the no fly zone controlled by Kurds. Oh and Atta was in Prague.
6) The hijackers were Saudis. Saudi Arabia is the number one financier and exporter of wahabi clerics and militant Islamic groups. Instead of getting tough with Saudi Arabia there is Bandar advising the president.”

Except for #2 these are all peripheral/irrelevant arguments. Yes, Osama escaped from Tora Bora; did that mean Saddam didn’t have a weapons program? Yes, Blix and Ritter said Saddam didn’t have any weapons. The news was full of stories of how the inspectors were being given the runaround, meanwhile the administration was saying we know there are weapons, we know where they are, and we know there’s a program. Yes, Iraq was a secular state; did that mean Saddam didn’t have a weapons program? Yes, the talk about ties to 9/11 were obviously bullshit, even then; did that mean Saddam didn’t have a weapons program? Yes, the hijackers were mostly Saudis and Bandar was advising the President; did that mean Saddam didn’t have a weapons program?

The administration lied up and down about how Saddam had a weapons program. Tenet said it was a slam dunk. Powell said, “we got pictures!” Rice said, in my professional opinion as National Security Adviser we have to act now based on what I know. We The People don’t have access to the intelligence; we have to rely on these people to be straight with us. And they weren’t. Therefore our decisions were based on flawed premises, and I’m sorry but I refuse to take the blame for that. That’s not fair, that’s not just. It may make you feel good to crow about how vindicated you are and how wrong I was, but I’m still a citizen of this country and I’m not going to sit in the corner with the dunce hat on because I was lied to successfully.

Finally, my good buddy RobW (I want my initials back, BTW):
“So, if you know someone is a liar and a thief who will stop at nothing to aggrandize himself, subvert democracy itself, and destroy anyone in his way… is it “IRRATIONALâ€? to hate the bastard?”

No. If you KNOW all those things. I moved to Texas in mid-1996, and wasn’t really interested in state politics until after 2000. I knew he was a Republican, he was his daddy’s son, he’d owned the Rangers, and that was about it. I basically regarded him as a machine Republican, not a neocon ideologue (hell, I didn’t even know about PNAC until after 9/11). It never entered my mind that an American President would be willing to lie to the American people to try to start a holy war (what would this be, the 16th Crusade?). It never seemed possible that someone of the party of Historical American Values would interpret the Constitution as saying that the President is a King, directly in contradiction of the Founding Fathers they so love to refer to. I could not conceive of an American President sanctioning indefinite secret detention and torture on par with that of the Soviet Union, with Cuba our new Siberia and Lubyanka all rolled into one. All of these horrors have come to pass, and now stand revealed; but in the Winter of 2002 and the Spring of 2003, there were still dark, festering secrets.

“That YOU, a supposed Democrat, have twice repeated a GOP-bred meme (irrational Bush hatred) makes you look like you are STILL believing their lies.”

Well, you tell me what I’m supposed to call it then. From my perspective, in 2002 you had no basis for believing that Bush would do what he has since done. All I knew was that you hated Bush and all his works, and would search for the ulterior motive if he helped old ladies across the street. And now you want to string me up as an enabler and DINO because I based my decisions on what I knew at the time. You and others like you want to run me off of any blogs I post on, regardless of what I say. You automatically suspect my motives, and accuse me of being a “concern troll” (which term you misuse, I’m not expressing ANY concern, but it’s fun to call people concern trolls) because I don’t hate Bush purely enough for you. If that’s not irrational, what the hell is?

“Well, this is a snark-heavy site. That means people will be insulted and feelings will be hurt.”

No problem. I’m going to stick up for myself though.

liberalrob, for what it’s worth, I believed as early as September 2001 that the administration was pushing the nation toward an unjustified war. That belief wasn’t based on knee-jerk Bush hatred. Rather, it was based on my need to see affirmative evidence in favor of a drastic action like attacking another country. Members of the administration started talking about Iraq as a target literally within days of the 9/11 attacks. The problem was that their talk was all claims and no evidence. Did I have evidence that Iraq wasn’t involved? No. Did I have evidence that Iraq didn’t have WMDs? No. But having negative evidence wasn’t my job. It was the job of the administration to have affirmative evidence of its claims, and it never presented any — until the 2003 SOTU address with its subsequently debunked claim about African uranium. By that time, I admit I wasn’t buying that evidence as valid because the administration had already been planning for war in the absence of any demonstrable cause.

I’m not really interested in playing the “I knew, why didn’t you?” game — but I’m even less interested in being told that the only reason I could have been skeptical about the administration’s claims is irrational hatred.

Is it an advantage for Obama to have opposed the Iraq War from the start? Absolutely. A big advantage.

But it’s NOT a necessary qualification to run. I’m not about to throw half the Party’s senior leaders under the bus because they give in to the same political pressure that most of their colleagues gave in to. For all I know, the Party might’ve been buried if it had chosen to fight Bush whole-heartedly just then, taking on his strongest suit while his power was at or near its height.

Granted, I always opposed the war for reasons that have held up real well over time, and I would’ve liked to have seen that fight. But I’m not going to give the political death penalty to Democrats who went along with most of the other Democrats. Just not gonna do it. It was a low point for my Party, but it’s still my Party. (I have no real choice about that.)

Now the candidate’s CURRENT position on Iraq is a horse of a different color, necessary-qualification-wise. Kerry and Edwards have managed to circle around into acceptable territory. Hillary hasn’t–yet. If she doesn’t, she’s toast not just for me but for the Democratic electorate at a whole. But if she wants to come out early in 2007 and start talking sense about Iraq, I’ll be listening.

Look, you can be suspicious of Bush and not be blinded by bush hatred. Similarly, you could have took him at his word in 2003 (or perhaps Colin Powell’s) and now realize you were a sucker.

In September of 2001, I thought rather highly of Bush. I admit it, I was wrong. America had been attacked and the country and the world rallied together. I remember those days. The consensus was that the US had to go into Afghanistan. The consensus was that the US had been attacked and steps had to be taken to prevent another September 11th. I thought the US needed to rally, the world needed to rally. A terrible event had taken place and it wasn’t a time for petty bickering or partisan politics. After all, in World War II, the Left and Right had united to help defeat Nazism. Forgive me for being naive in thinking another moment was at hand.

I think my waking up from George Bush is the next Churchill moment was the Axis of Evil Speech. Prior to it, I had thought the Patriot Act as a power grab and some of the rhetoric towards Iraq had been disquieting to say the least. But the notion that somehow Iraq, Iran and North Korea were a reincarnation of Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy and Imperial Japan made me realize that George Bush was a ) an idiot and b) Was only interested in using 9/11 as a means to fulfill his own political objectives.

Should I have realized on September 11th, 2001 that the US was in trouble because George Bush was in charge? In a perfect world, yes. Was the evidence there that he would go into Iraq if he got a chance to do so prior to the 2000 election, again yes. Was a war of choice in Iraq likely doomed from the get go? Again, yes. As I said to my friends in March of 2003 when they asked what would happen, I said something on the order of “The US will get to Baghdad, that much is certain. What the hell happens after that, I have absolutely no idea.”

But we don’t live in a perfect world in which all of our decisions are made after careful consideration of everything and the examination of likely outcomes of our actions. We make mistakes, rush to judgment and more than anything else, sometimes we accept things as truth because “everybody says (or does) it.” The critics of the war were right and no amount of “well we’re here now and can’t do anything about that” can change that simple fact. I’ll go even further and say that the critics of Bush in 2000 had it right, and people including myself desperately, in the wake of the horrors of 9/11, wanted a proper leader at the helm. I made a mistake. I believed (at least at first) what the US government was saying and what it’s cheerleaders in the media were urging. I was wrong but I wised up. In life, as in politics, there are plenty of times when we will be wrong. Hopefully, we are smart enough to learn from those mistakes, so we can make different ones.

I think there’s a lot of voters that are re-thinking what they thought in 2000, and even 2004. Regardless of the legitimacy of those elections (especially 2000) there is a groundswell forming that reflects a change of thinking in the electorate. People eventually get it, no matter how long the process or how inept the candidates. The important thing, IMHO is to grab this moment, to focus this groundswell into a movement that combines liberals and moderates into a constituency that cannot be ignored, that can change the course of a presidential election. It’s not probable, but it’s way more than possible. The Congressional approval ratings have never been lower, and people (especially here in economically starved Michigan) know a change is necessary, if not in their minds than in their hearts. Hokey? So was FDR. To quote the great Steve Perry, “Don’t Stop, Believin'”.
Hold on to that fee-ee-ee-ee-lin”

Of course, Journey also uttered another infamous line in that song, one about being:
“Born and raised in South Detroit”.
Which doesn’t exist. We’re split East and West. But their drummer Steve Smith was a beast. Did Journey for the check, did jazz on the side to please his muse.
Sorry for the sidetrack. Carry on.

Don’t take Brad Henry, please! After a generation’s worth of busy venal pinheads Oklahoma was finally graced with a governor who doesn’t do much, God bless him. You have no idea how shallow the bench is out here. We were fine with Bush taking Keating (he didn’t, that turd!) but leave Henry (and his totally MILF first lady) right where he is!

(Kim Henry was my Oklahoma History teacher in 9th grade. Really.)

In September of 2001, I thought rather highly of Bush. I admit it, I was wrong. America had been attacked and the country and the world rallied together. I remember those days. The consensus was that the US had to go into Afghanistan. The consensus was that the US had been attacked and steps had to be taken to prevent another September 11th. I thought the US needed to rally, the world needed to rally. A terrible event had taken place and it wasn’t a time for petty bickering or partisan politics. After all, in World War II, the Left and Right had united to help defeat Nazism. Forgive me for being naive in thinking another moment was at hand.

It was worse than naivete to believe these things. It was ignorance and gullibility. It was an igorance of the way governments have historically worked. It was an unwillingness to look at the data that was readily available to anyone with access to the internet. And it was, in the end, representative of what is, in my opinion, the worst quality America represents – that rah-rah, jingoistic, rally ’round the flag and all doubters and naysayers be damned mentality that makes the rest of the world look at us like we’re bullies and dummies and worse. It’s the mentality one should bring to pro football, but should try to leave out of politics. It’s the willingness to go along with the crowd because they appeal to your instincts that was so roundly condemned by the work of men like Stanley Milgram.

There really *wasn’t* a consensus on the things you claim there was. Whatever consensus there was ended at the borders of Afghanistan. And the rhetoric toward Iraq was grounded in a position paper released by PNAC in 2000 called “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”. This position paper was rooted in rhetoric that the PNAC think tank had been spouting since at least 1996. In fact, if you hunt through their archives, you can find a letter there urging Bill Clinton to declare war on Iraq. One of the signers of that letter is Dick Cheney. Take a look at the authors of the “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” paper, and you’ll see some familiar names there, as well.

The best thing about that particular paper is that in the end, if you follow the recommendations it lays out to the letter, you’ll find yourself in a hot war with China. Now, I’m no military history expert or anything, but just the phrase “war with China” is enough to make me want to wet my pants. If we try that, we’ll lose – and we’ll lose very, very badly. It’s a nightmare scenario out of a Hieronymous Bosch bad acid trip.

I’m not linking to anything here, because I just can’t even see the point at the moment. This information has been around for five to fifteen years now. It’s not particularly hidden. It’s just that nobody takes it seriously. This, ironically enough, is another one of those creepy parallels between our current political situation and the situation in Nazi Germany. Mein Kampf was published in 1925. One of the big themes of the book was the need for Germans to push eastward, into Russian territory, for their lebensraum. Hitler’s vision for the eastern frontier was a series of Aryan metropolitan regions surrrounded by vast farmland which would be worked by populations of slavic serfs. This, as a historical curiosity, was supposed to be the end purpose of the Autobahn…to connect those islands of “civilization” in the wasteland of the East.

And yet, despite the fact that this had all been in print and readily available for almost twenty years before Operation Barbarossa, Josef Stalin *still* had a nervous breakdown when Hitler crossed the Polish border.

I’m not blaming you, HG. I’m not trying to call you out or single you out here. I’m past blaming people at this point. To my mind, there’s something sort of sick about standing next to a pile of six hundred thousand corpses and trying to point fingers at who started it, anyway.

It’s just that this sort of thing provides a really good illustration of why I think that this country is sick to the very marrow of its bones; probably sick beyond repair at this point. Intelligent, well meaning people aren’t able to avoid falling into dangerous, deadly thought patterns like these. This is the shit that fertilizes concentration camps, ladies and gentlemen. And we have a nation of people who cannot avoid it, even when they know better.

Like I said, I’m past blaming or even being mad at this point. I’m just depressed. I don’t see a way to fix this.

His Grace and jillian both make a good point. Deep, abiding mistrust of everything Bush and, more importantly, his administration says and does is not an irrational hatred. It’s a very reasonable position well supported both by knowledge of these particular men and women and the nature of our political system. Also, there was the whole blatant theft of Florida and still arguably illegal intervention by the Supreme Court that used the inconvenience of potentially declaring someone other than Bush the winner as a legal basis for giving him the presidency. All you had to do to be suspicious was pay basic attention.
I gave Bush some latitude for a time after 9/11. I was mad Bush got so much credit for the bullhorn moment, considering it took him three days to get here. But going into Afganistan made logical sense, even if we took too long to do it.
Then there began to be whispers about Iraq, and Bush didn’t make a play at Tora Bora because they didn’t want to put american lives at risk, or so I remember it being claimed at the time.
After that I stopped giving him latitude. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, hadn’t attacked us, and wasn’t about to.
I don’t blame those who were fooled, I just wish they’d learn something about themselves and the world from it. And not be so ready to dismiss those who clearly saw what was happening as irrational and hateful. We had good reason for our passion.

And as far as obama goes, I hope he runs because we might as well get it over with now. He’s either the real deal or just another pol who’s decided a religious lefty is the next big thing. I think the best chance for the dems would be gore-obama, but even more important is that it’s not hillary or kerry. Neither would have a chance against mccain.
As far as the mole men, I think the forest is being missed for the trees. The real threat is skrulls, and the fact is weaponizing space is the only solution.

I’m one of the ones that was never fooled by Shrubbya, I never trusted him as far as I can throw Fatass Cheney… overhand. But I can’t brag too much. It was as much a matter of luck as anything. Well, luck followed up with a lot of internet research. I didn’t particularly remember Dumbya from back in his dad;s administration, and was vaguely aware that he was the Governor of Texas. At the time, I was ignorant of the fascinating story of how, exactly, he became Governor of Texas. But, that was all soon to change–Time magazine published an excerpt from Molly Ivins’ book, Shrub: The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush. It was appalling. This guy seemed worse than his father, and I hated that upper-crust gimp. Hell, I’d voted for fucking Dukakis (and lost) and Clinton against H.W., and hadn’t regretted either one. So, I set about getting a copy of Shrub from my local library. My vision was rather poor at the time, so fortunately, it was a fairly slim volume.
“Shrub” actually gave me a pretty good working idea of how the Chimp-In-Chief and his gang of Iran-Contra retreads operated, so when the shamefully dirty tricks they played on McCain happened, I wasn’t terribly surprised (as it so happens, McCain’s been looking less and less savory as time goes by).
By this time, I had started reading the Smirking Chimp, which I had seen referenced in a newsletter from J. Michael Straczynski, creator of the sci-fi show, “Babylon 5” (yes, the ways things connect is sometimes rather unpredictable).
I was finding the Chimp quite useful in the leadup to the election, though even moreso then it did have its share of Krazed Konspiracy Kommandoes. I had yet to discover the blogs (yes, even though the Chimp linked to Atrios and Kos and several of the early adopters/heavy hitters in left-blogsylvania). I wound up reading a lot of Scott Ritter articles and interviews there. At some point, probably toward the start of the war, I finally started checking out the blogs (Atrios’ blogroll is real handy for checking out a wide variety of lefty political blogs). So, while I don’t think blogs had too much influence on my views as the war geared up, I was pretty vehemently opposed to it from the start.

Huzzah! I broke teh tagz! PLEASE return the “Preview” button, for all our sakes!

Tag.

Still it?

liberalrob – You are either a child, dumb or a coward. You naivete, ignorance or fear helped pave the way for the greatest strategic blunder of the past fifty years. Sure the administration lied to you but you wanted, perhaps even needed, to believe. Plus you response is a diosingenouse piece of shit (something I suspect you already know.) Obviously, when I am discussing terror and Al Qaeda it is to refute the claim Saddam had ties to Al Qaeda not that he never, ever, ever had a ‘weapons program’. If your entire support for the war is based on the fact Iraq could not account for 10 – 20% of its chemical weapons then my points do not apply to you. If you support the war for this reason you are a horrble and ridiculous little man. I am done with you.