We gave president the benefit of doubt and he lied. Position of strength?

I recall a memo being sent from the DLC to several members on the hill saying Democrats must not allow the Republicans to appear stronger on issues of national defense, followed by a Rose Garden ceremony which in effect led to the blank check for this war.

Some of our presidential candidates were present at this ceremony. I now ask the following of both those who believed this was the proper course, and those who believed this was a serious error.

Is saying you were FOOLED by somebody a position of strength?
Which would you prefer? The no vote who held his ground and turned out to be factually accurate...the HAWK who held his ground, turned out to be factually inaccurate but will continue to say that deposing Saddam was the right thing to do no matter the cost, or the candidate who got duped and claims his vote was predicated on giving Bush the benefit of the doubt?

I am asking this in earnest

that trust.

In this case, Bush breached our trust.

existed last september. The aluminum tubes for instance.

of his record of lying. Oh, it wasn't broadcast...the mainstream media did a good job of covering for him. But if you read the scources on the internet that got the real stories on bush; you would be able to tell that he was not to be trusted. From his record in Texas, his 2000 campaign and beyond.

I prefer "the no vote who held their ground and turned out to be factually accurate".

:kick:



Thanks for asking!

it's the poltically bright thing to do. And I don't want a dem nominee who is a poltically stupid asshole or he will be de-balled by Bush and Rove. I'm not looking for virtue. Virtue and politics and big government don't mix in the same sentence and when they do it means that the virtuous twit gets run through a shredder. Now that said, I want the politically astute Dems (whomever they are) to keep chirping every time Bush brings up anything, decides anything, promotes anything, or even opens his mouth to let out a backed up fart out, to scream "BUT BUT BUT can we trust him given his history?????--perhaps he his misinformed and, as usual, doesn't know it"!!! They have to raise the issue now of not trusting Bush on ANYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!

So politically, I think the former is more compelling, even though the latter is more satisfying. :-)

DTH

;-)doesn't mean realpolitik doesn't still result in nausea for me. :puke:

I hope some Democrat figures this out...

I'd prefer sooner rather than later :eyes:

Gephardt is confronted on his support of Iraq war
By DEIRDRE SHESGREEN Post-Dispatch Washington Bureau
updated: 07/14/2003 12:18 AM

DUBUQUE, Iowa - Rep. Richard Gephardt faced angry questions about his support for the Iraq war and President George W. Bush's claims about weapons of mass destruction there during a presidential forum Sunday.
<snip>
The administration said last week that the Niger information was not true and shouldn't have been put in the president's address. White House officials said the CIA approved the line in Bush's speech before he delivered it.


"... Now we get evidence that perhaps some of the things the president was saying to the American public and the Congress may not have been true," Gephardt said.

Gephardt refused to say that he was misled or wasn't skeptical enough when the administration made its case for the war. But he criticized Bush for pointing the finger at the CIA, saying Bush should take responsibility for the Niger statement.

"Here's the president of the United States saying it wasn't my fault. It's the CIA's fault," Gephardt said.

In the middle of his answer, Roche's 22-year-old son, Andy, screamed out: "You willfully ignored the facts! ... How can you act like the past did not happen?"
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/CE2BE46AEA691ACD86256D63001D28E7?OpenDocument&Headline=Gephardt+is+confronted+on+his+support+of+Iraq+war

Didn't play too well in Iowa

"shoulder to shoulder" with Bush in the Rose Garden.

That's a good way to end up in a meat locker. Or on a plate with mint jelly.

Any elected politician too naive to get that George lies, is too naive to represent me. And I'm horrified that even one of them would make that claim.

To those Dem candidates who abdicated their constitutional duty and let a solitary madman set loose the hounds of war at his own deranged discretion, there are two equally disturbing explanations for your behavior:

A) You honestly believed a man who makes used car salesmen look like the very paragons of honesty and virtue, who used evidence about as credible as "natural male enhancement" e-mail advertisements. Are you also congnizant of the fact that there is no Santa Claus and that the moon is indeed not fabricated of solid cheddar? If you're genuinely this credulous please send me a check for $10,000 to help out my sick aunt. This isn't a scam, I swear.

B) You knew all along that the war sales pitch was a big ol' steaming pile of malarkey, but you chose to go along with it because you were SCARED. Yep, you've got all the intestinal fortitude of a eight year old kid on a roller coaster ride who's just eaten his own weight in cotton candy and washed it down with a gallon or two of Mountain Dew. You've got all the backbone of a chocolate eclair. You've got the heart of a boiled turnip. You thought that if you kissed backside of the bully's Wranglers long enough, he might stop beating you up and taking your lunch money. Well soo-prise, soo-prise, you were wrong. Your only reward for your profile in gutlessness was a swift kick in the teeth and wedgie you had to pry out with a crowbar. Guess what? Liars lie and bullies bully. If you don't know that by now, you've got nobody to blame but your own damn self so don't come crying to us in the hopes that we'll give you a glass of warm milk whilst patting you on the head and saying "there, there - would the Democratic nomination make you feel all better?"


COURAGE is the watchword of the day, friends. Let those who have been found wanting in that area know that they shall go no farther on our watch.

Priceless!

maybe this should be a post of its own, or would that be vain on my part?

I really think the real poltikers are not accurate on this point. Sure, nobody could have known what would have occurred but the was the most politically motivated war in the history of the US...moreso than any I can recal..and politically manipulated for gain last October...I think those who were against the war fared better electorally than those who were for..no?

And, Starpass, I have to disagree with you on "virtue and politics don't mix".

I want a candidate with virtue, not someone who sticks his finger in the wind, goes somewhere, and then says "Whoops.. I was fooled!"

I can respect anyone, and I mean anyone, that honestly owns and can defend their beliefs... ON THE CONDITION.... that if they were wrong they admit it. It's the second side of the blade, being able to admit your mistakes no matter how much you hate to do so. (I don't count being duped as a mistake).

Benefit of the doubt is one thing, but on something as serious as sending kids to war, etc., you damn well better convince me that my position is wrong... benefit of the doubt doesn't cut it here.


:)

peace

and gave Bush & Co. the benefit of the doubt. Why? Mainly b/c of Clinton and Blair's steadfast support of it in the past.

Was I wrong to support the war? Looks that way.

Will I give the administration the benefit of the doubt ever again? Hell no.

YOu are probably the first pro war Du'er I have seen say that. I watched Clinton on Larry King prior to the war and felt that much of what he said was based on the PNAC memo. I was less impressed with Blair but insofar as Clinton is conerned, I felt he was more for it for political reasons (i.e.DLC and their claptrap about looking strong on Nat'l security) so I wasn't impressed with his position either, I might also add that I felt Clinton made the wrong choice when we retreated from Somalia where we might have actually SAVED lives by executing a war and actually INTERRUPTED terrorism had we stayed.

I agree we shouldn't have retreated from Somalia, but I don't think Congress was going to give the President much of a choice about retreating.

And I think that people like you are extremely angry right now and directing that anger (somewhat rightfully) at Shrub.

I just hope we don't lose those new voters by calling them names. They made a mistake, they are owning up to it, and (like you) they won't make it again. That is an indication of growth, and a good sign that some Americans are finally waking up.

put their trust in the President our "national security" was potentially at stake according to that president. Similarly national security in the wake of 9/11 was used to get Congress to OK the Enabling....uh, er....Patriot Act. Heck even the Capitol Building was vacated for an anthrax scare, but really to have security go in and read all the dems computers :tinfoil:, and Daschle and Leahy getting anthrax mailings

The wimpy Dems have left themselves wide open for
the GOP to claim that

1) they were fooled
2) they are cleaning up their own mess
3) Dems are wimps

arendt

if they gave him the benefit of the doubt then they weren't doing their damn jobs.

while it is impossible to get to the absolute truth of matters, they didn't even try. how many of them even listened to the counter arguments and dug a little deeper into the pit of deception--very very few.

aaargghh.

Rove had set a trap. The * admin openly claimed WMD plus intent, etc. Over and over. With no serious questions from the media the American people (except for here at DU) pretty much belived that crap of course. They were also claiming other evidence that was "too sensitive to release".

If I remember correctly even Dems were agreeing that Saddam had WMD's and was ready to use them. The question was whether (edit typo) the UN inspectors should be given a chance to find them - or if it was too dangerous to wait for them.

If the Dems voted no on the resolution - they'd be toast if it turned our otherwise. I assume they saw that as a trap that Rove was setting up.

I don't see how they could have done otherwise. Dean and Kucinich could have seen it as a long shot - as a chance to close the gap between themselves and Dem front runners if it turned our bad for *Bush. But I'm just guessing on that. Could just as easily have been conviction on their part. But I don't know how they could have known for sure.

That's why even Dean was saying that we should give Bush* the "benefit of the doubt"

before the invasion began key intelligence information were called into question,including the Niger forgery.

i know i sent my Rep every piece of questionable evidence reports that i knew about. those coming from the UK were also included.

They had the chance to follow through and reverse themselves but they chose not to. There was a resolution to rescind the power that was granted the Great Deceiver but they didn't vote in favor of it.

Rove trap :eyes: ...I hope you folks you do the right thing.

First, I give them absolutely NO credit for giving Bush the benfit of the doubt.

* WE knew there were no WMDs -- certainly not sufficient to be an imminent threat. There were plenty of mainstream and alternate press reports of leaks from: the CIA, the DIA, Pentagon, and also retired military speaking out like they NEVER have before. And let's not forget Scott Ritter who was EVERYwhere trying to prevent this war.

* Blix's reports to the UN weren't that condemnatory.

* The rest of the world didn't buy it. Remember, many of them have their own intelligence communities. Why weren't they afraid. (C'mon, Congress, this is the damned common sense test!!)

* There were millions upon millions of phone calls, faxes, emails to Congress from those of us who DID know.

* The polls themselves showed very, very thin "support" for this war. As soon as any contingencies beyond a video-game war were presented as options, support for the war dropped off dramatically. And the support wasn't that strong to begin with.

* AND there were millions of people protesting. Finally (and probably foremost), they had a record of deceit and fabrication from this administration.

* There was even the PNAC report AND the National Security plan which was modeled on the PNAC report -- all this was known well before the war.

HOW COULD THEY NOT KNOW? To NOT know that this was all a fabrication was a dereliction of duty beyond comprehension. THEY SENT YOUNG PEOPLE TO DIE FOR NOTHING but an oil grab on the way to empire. THEY SANCTIONED THE DESTRUCTION OF A SOVEREIGN NATION and gave tacit approval to the immoral and illegal preventive war doctrine. AAAARRRGGHH!

And btw, sangh0, Howard Dean said all along that he didn't think Bush had made the case that Iraq was an imminent threat. If you've got him saying give Bush the benefit of the doubt, that's a link I'd like to see, because that's either untrue or has been taken completely out of context.

The ONLY acceptable option is: the no vote who held his ground and turned out to be factually accurate. HOWEVER, either of the other two -- the hawk or the duped -- will earn my forgiveness ONLY upon a complete denunciation of their vote, a profound apology to Americans, Iraqis and the world, and relentless calls for impeachment. Those are the ONLY choices.

It is NOT enough to say, well, it's a good thing Saddam is gone. IT ISN'T A GOOD THING SADDAM IS GONE -- we've made a friggin' mess of the place, with no plan in place at all, so little likelihood of pulling out a save. A whole country has been destroyed, in more ways than one. FOR WHAT? To serve evil intent.

Those YES votes were made out of crass political calculus or incompetence. They should ALL be replaced if they won't clearly and totally disavow those votes. Period.

Eloriel

I did not believe the * administration either and like most here believed it was bullshit. But we at DU have a special hatred for the neo-cons that until now most Americans have been blind to.

But still, at the time and in that context, the crooks were saying they had incontrovertible proof (that they could not disclose for national security reasons) that we were in imminent danger from Iraq. Most Americans belived that as did most of the meida - even though some were questioning it. But even they were hedging their bets, only saying "yes, but . . " instead of "this is a pack of lies".

All I'm saying is that as much as I (we) despise this administration they were calling the shots because that is their position to be out in front on threats to security. For a dem to outright call them liars at that time (with no evidence to prove it, just circumstantial) would be called by the whore press as a cheap political attack at a time when our nation needs to come together in defense from the "terrarists". They (Rove) had all the cards and it was dangerous for us to call their (possible) bluff.

They (most dem pols) did the best they could based on the cards that were showing - they played it safe - knowing that this could all come back to kick their (*Bushies') asses if they were lieing. Look what's happening.

Yes, 200 plus Americans and 3000 or more Iraqis have died. But Iraq could have had some bio or chem weapons stashed someplace and could possibly have unleashed them in Grand Central Station in NY. If that had happened, after strong dem opposition to the resolution, I gurantee you it would be at least fifty years before another dem ever had a chance to run for president. (I would not even put it past the *Bushies to stage such an event if they thought it was politically necessary to advance their agenda and remian in power.)

I think they (dems) made the right decision by reluctantly going along with the resolution - based on *shrubs assurances that it was necessary - showing a non-partisanship that everyone knows the repukes did not show in the same circumstances (as in 1998).

Don't let your hatred for *Bush destroy those on our side who are our allies. I know, I have a hard time with that too.

The no vote is the only acceptable option. The other two options are either, incompetent (uhh but W said so?), or dishonest and incompetent (uhh W said so and well ain't the world a better place?).


My 2 cents on why Dean will continue to do well.
Leadership, credibility = calling crap, crap; and it helps being proven right later

:hi:

For strength, not only for holding ground under fire, for not being a follower, for putting the truth above short-sighted political considerations and for having the mental presence and strength to see through the wall of bullshit. And to speak it loudly like a real leader.

Numero uno priority for an effective presidential contender.

supporting the Dems who voted for this fiasco was just their "giving the benefit of the doubt," but I just don't see it that way. Living in Texas under Bush's governorship taught us much. I still can't see how so many are hood-winked by him. Lies are second-nature with these guys. For one, Cheney WAS a resident in Dallas, Texas while he was running in 2000. The Dallas news FILMED him pulling in his driveway. He should have never been on the ballot to begin with!

This war was gonna happen no matter what.

A lot of people have forgotten about that too. When the suit was filed challenging Cheney's inclusion on the ballot was a high point of my week those many eons ago. Glad to know that the repub appointed federal judge dismissed that suit without actually allowing the plaintiff to present any evidence- God forbid!

who held his ground. they were right, thus putting them automatically into the position of strength.

as for those that were "duped," they are going to have to try to turn the tables because they do appear kinda silly now. they're going to have to admit the mistake, and try something like "it is inconceivable to me that anyone could lie about something that would cost so many lives. i wasn't "duped." i made the mistake of overestimating bush's humanity. it appears he has none. who knew?"

if the fooled ones maintain that the end justifies the means...well, i for one ain't gonna be "duped!" ;-)

They appear to have taken the matter seriously, which is appropriate for such an important decision, rather than the republicans, for whom the question seems to have been too easy.

Also, the pro-vote dems can be seen as having put the national interest above partisan politics, while the republicans blindly went with their party leader.

I think even the antiwar protests and mail campaigns could work in the dems favor. A vote for the war in the face of this public resistance could be seen to actually be courageous, in a way. Not to take that too far, but it is a factor, imo.