"They spoke the truth then and they're speaking politics now,"

Tuesday, November 15, 2005
President Bush is being very harsh concerning memory lapses suffered by Democratic leaders. He has shown little sympathy with Democrats such as Rockefeller, Levin, Reid, Kerry and Edwards who are claiming that they did not realize what they were doing when they cast their votes on the authorization to use force in 2002. I generally support the President but in this instance and considering those involved I think it very likely that they did not, in fact know what they were doing. If it's true today, why shouldn't it have been true in 2002?

To buttress their claim Democratic leadership accross the board have asserted that they lacked sufficient intelligence to make an informed decision prior to the 2002 vote. They claim to a man and woman that the intelligence that they rely upon is "cooked" and that due to that fact they were incapable of making a correct decision.

I believe that the President does a diservice to Democratic leadership by not taking them at their word. These people provide evidence of the veracity of the status of intelligence that they use in making determinations regarding their votes on a daily basis, I see no reason to doubt them. Defective intelligence is a touchy matter and if the Democrats claim that it was all they had to work with, who are we to say anything different?

10 comments:

terrye said...

Every now and then [like say after Harriet Miers was publicly humiliated], I think maybe I will go back to the Democrats...if they can get serious about national security.

I am not all that conservative when it comes to social issues, so it seems plausible.

And then they go do something really stupid like this. I hope Bush goes after this like it was another campaign.

Listening to Harry Reid reminds me why I can not vote for a Democrat.

We have troops in Iraq and these people helped send them there. I listened to Democrats talk about Saddam and his weapons long before Bush ever made any speeches on the subject.

Either they are stupid or they think I am and neither inspires confidence.

In 10 years if Iraq really does settle down these same people will be reminding us how they voted for the Iraqi Liberation Act. Just whatever works at the time....

But then again in a decade some of these folks will be getting a little long in the tooth.

Peter UK said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Syl said...

“History will show that none of the leading Democrats had substantial intelligence.”
John F. Kerry

Eric Blair said...

If they claim they did not have enough information to base a decision on at the time, why didn't they say so? Why didn't they balk then?

(I'm aware that many Democrats did vote against, but that's not because they didn't have enough information).

David Thomson said...

“Listening to Harry Reid reminds me why I can not vote for a Democrat.”

Nothing is going to change. The Democratic Party as a viable national entity died last November. Admittedly, few people see this as clearly as I do. Most believe that it’s merely a question of time before the Democrats get their act together. After all, isn’t that what occurred in the past? Doesn’t the weaker party eventually learns how to get back on the road to electoral success? Why do I believe that the Democratic Party’s situation is so desperate? The answer: the Internet. This new medium allows the radical elitists to raise money and keep in constant communication with each other. These ideological lunatics don’t have to give damn about pleasing the party’s more moderate establishment members.

Do the Democrats have any chance in 2008 to regain the White House? Yes, if they can deceive the American people. Their comrades in the MSM may have just enough remaining influence to help them pull it off this con job.

Peter UK said...

errye,
The most dangerous aspect of this is the "Not my War,Not my President" psychosis which is prevalent amongst the left.Basically they are seceding from the policies of a democratically elected government, they have arrogated the right to pick and choose what is and what isn't "Done their name".

This isn't dissent it is rebellion.

Knucklehead said...

Instapundit mentions the continuing GOP "pushback" against the Tired Old Memes of Tired Old Sophomoric Democrats and provides a comment from a reader who mentions the "Bush misled Americans to believe Saddam had a role in the 9/11 attack" meme.

This meme is based upon poll results that have consistently shown that a large portions of Americans believe Saddam had some sort of connection to either the attack specifically or to the terrorists (aQ) who carried it out. The meme, of course, either implicitly or explicitly (depending upon who is blathering it) suggests that there is "no evidence" that Saddam/Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attack and, therefore, Americans being the gullible idiots they are and GWB being the evil genius moron warmonger he is, this is another example of administration perfidy.

The WaPo Poll which is the "data source" for this meme has apparently been conducted four times. The first was on 9/13/01 (two days after 9/11/01) and the most recent was August '03.

Some things of note here. The poll is multiple part question that measures public opinion. Read it for yourself. It does not ask the respondents if they are convinced by some evidence, it simply asks their opinion along the standard "Likely" to "Not Likely" scale.

The opinions of the respondents re: the question(s) as they were phrased remained remarkably consistent over those two years but shifted slightly toward the "Not Likely" portion of the spectrum.

The highest "Likely" percentages were in the first poll immediately following the 9/11 attack. Those of in the VRWC who are familiar with the development and deployment of the Rove MindControl Device (RMCD) are well aware of the fact that the control console was out of action on 9/13/01 because of the damage to the Pentagon. Naturally it was quickly relocated and brought back into operation and has been periodically focused on maintaining the strong majority public opinion that Saddam was "likely" involved, in some way or other, with the 9/11 attacks. The fact that the strength of the majority is slightly dissipated is, of course, cause for concern. It is not clear at this point if there is a flaw in the RMCD or if new maintenance procedures need to be developed.

Knucklehead said...

Clarice Feldman, at the The American Thinker, in her article Hitchens Hammers It Home, points to Hitchens' Slate article, Are you sure you want to keep saying we were fooled by Ahmad Chalabi and the INC?. Hitchens does an excellent job of further emasculating the moronic Democrat's "we didn't have enough intelligence" position.

Here are some excerpts which don't reflect the the full case Hitchen's makes or Ms. Feldman points out, but which I get particular enjoyment pointing to. Hitchens quotes Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus from their 11/12/05 WaPo "analysis" Asterisks Dot White House's Iraq Argument:

But in trying to set the record straight, [Bush] asserted: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support."

The October 2002 joint resolution authorized the use of force in Iraq, but it did not directly mention the removal of Hussein from power.


Then goes on to state:

A prize, then, for investigative courage, to Milbank and Pincus. They have identified the same problem, though this time upside down, as that which arose from the passage of the Iraq Liberation Act, during the Clinton-Gore administration, in 1998. That legislation—which passed the Senate without a dissenting vote—did expressly call for the removal of Saddam Hussein but did not actually mention the use of direct U.S. military force.

Let us suppose, then, that we can find a senator who voted for the 1998 act to remove Saddam Hussein yet did not anticipate that it might entail the use of force, and who later voted for the 2002 resolution and did not appreciate that the authorization of force would entail the removal of Saddam Hussein! Would this senator kindly stand up and take a bow? He or she embodies all the moral and intellectual force of the anti-war movement. And don't be bashful, ladies and gentlemen of the "shocked, shocked" faction, we already know who you are.


and, after suitably calling them stupid for the Chalabi Hysteria, concludes:

We can now certify Iraq as disarmed, even if the materials once declared by the Saddam regime and never accounted for have still not been found. Why does this certified disarmament upset people so much? Would they rather have given Saddam the benefit of the doubt? Much more infuriating about the current anti-Chalabi hysteria is this: He turns up in Washington with a large delegation of Iraqi democrats, including a female Shiite ex-Communist, several Sunni dignitaries from the "hot" provinces, and the legendary Abdul Karim al-Muhammadawi, who led a genuine insurgency among the Marsh Arabs for 18 years. And the American left mounts a gargoyle picket line outside and asks silly and insulting questions inside, about a question that has already been decided. What a travesty this is. Not only do the liberal Democrats apparently want their own congressional votes from 1998 and 2002 back. It sometimes seems that they are actually nostalgic for the same period, when Saddam Hussein was running Iraq, and there were no coalition soldiers to challenge his rule, and when therefore by definition there was peace, and thus things were more or less OK. Their current claim to have been fooled or deceived makes them out, on their own account, to be highly dumb and gullible. But as dumb and gullible as that?

The man may be a Looney Leftist at heart but he do be havin' a sense o' humor (a rare commodity among Leftists).

Barry Dauphin said...

Rick,

OT
I see that Pajamas Media is to be named Open Source Media. When I saw that, I thought, isn't that what Rick had in mind initally during the "name the company" bonanza last summer. So I checked. Not exactly but pretty close: http://www.rogerlsimon.com/mt-archives/2005/06/pajamas_media_q_2.php#c53630

Will they give you 2/3 of the naming rights and the cash that comes with that?

Rick Ballard said...

Barry,

"I'm sure it is a simple coincidence."

Repeat until believed.