Reid puts GOP senators on defensive

WASHINGTON -- A week ago Republicans derided Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada for pulling what they said was nothing more than a cheap "stunt" designed to politicize the issue of pre-war intelligence.

But the GOP isn't dismissing the action this week, as the issue still reverberates on Capitol Hill.

Democrats are seeking to gain more political traction by repeatedly stressing that the White House may have exaggerated the threat posed by Iraq. They also are drumming up creative ways to keep attention focused on the indictment of top White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby in the CIA leak investigation. Now Republicans are push-ing back.

As the Senate on Tuesday turned its attention to a bill that authorizes Defense Department spending, Republican senators took to the chamber floor to defend the invasion of Iraq, to tout its successes -- and to remind Democrats that many of them supported the war, too. Reid was among those who voted to authorize the invasion.

more...

http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/sun/2005/nov/09/519634187.html

the force is with you. :woohoo:

:woohoo: :woohoo:

and it wouldn't be necessary if the MSM was doing their job. :grr:

All the Democrats have to do is point out that they trusted the Administration not to lie about something as important as a reason to go to war and they - and the country - were betrayed.

the war, too" is the republican defense strategy? Well, the Democrats certainly DID NOT vote for the ineptitude, arrogance and carelssness that was rampant in the way the war was handled. THAT was done by republicans, republicans, republicans, republicans! They broke it, they own it!

It was like giving the keys to your car to a one-eyed chimpanzee on speed.

Still doesn't excuse all the lies and incompetence.

OK....Anyone please feel free to poke holes in this theory, but I'm getting a little tired of that particular "talking point".

In the run-up to the war, Congress was presented with information that was A) faulty (to say the least), and very possibly B) hyped, selective, "cooked", ginned up, etc., etc.

Given that, in the aftermath of 9/11, I think it's reasonable to assume that Congress would WANT to believe that our Commander in Chief - and the rest of his administration - was playing straight with them, they took them at their word.

Now - put aside for the moment that, considering who this information was coming from, they should have been a HELL of a lot more suspicious and stuck to the original weapons inspection timetables.....or made the administration show them ALL of the intel they received, and decided for themselves....

If someone lies to me, and I believe them, then afterwards I realized they lied to me, am I not entitled to say "If I knew you'd been lying to me - or even not giving me the full story - my decision would've been different"?

Sorry if this seems so basic, but my head nearly explodes every time I hear someone say "But you dems voted FOR the invasion!" (Coincidentally, my head actually DID explode when I heard Kerry say "if I knew then what I know now about the Iraq war, I would still vote for it." Exploded. All over the place. Hurt pretty bad, but I'm better now.)

and use it for my blog (poopy.farpoint.org)

Cheers! :toast:

One thing I think the ReThugs do that is really hurting "Average American" perception (aka disinterested, every 4 years, sometimes voters) of Democrats, is this "Hey, a lot of Democrats voted for the war and to support 'the President'..." BS talking point.

I feel we need a "counter-taking point" of something like, "we voted for what we now know was a pack of WH lies..." or something like that.

Anyone else feel this way?:shrug:

talking about this. On the C-Spans. Never in the corporate media.

they speak of this on the floor, but CNN carry it? Nope, better cover dead girls in Aruba or missing wives in NorCal... or hollywood freaks, you get the picture