Despite the wealth of factual information, the sad truth is that Red staters will continue to consider this to be biased media coverage, twisted evidence, partisan thuggery, and evil, unpatriotic behavior.
Apparently nothing registers with American Wingnuts, with the possible exception of Monday night football. The more evidence you present to them, the deeper they plant their heads in the sand, hearing only what they want to hear. The Repugs could recruit al-Zarqawi, and the wingnuts would line up to shake his hand and donate to his election campaign.
I realize it's only a small percentage of the Orifice that are really orbiting Vulcan, but it only took a couple of loonies to get the Intelligent Design crock going, and fewer still to bring us the Shiavo fiasco.
Unfortunately, the wingers will always be with us. Perhaps someone should look at embedding sublingual messages in "A Simple Life" and "The 700 Club". It might just work, and after all, it's for their own good.
There is the issue of Congress looking dumber than Bush because they were taken in by what he said. But I think democrats can make the argument that never before have they had to mistrust the intelligence passed along from the white house. I think they also have to hammer home the fact that *after* the vote on the war resolution, more evidence came to light casting serious doubt on claims of nuclear capability and Saddam's ties to al-qaeda, yet the WH still spouted their original false intelligence as fact.
Posted by CG at November 15, 2005 10:24 AMI liked the column, but he's still using the administrations propaganda by calling the Authorization for Use of Force a "the war resolution." No one voted to go to war.
Around the time the resolution was signed, the president said it was to "keep the peace."
The President: I am sending suggested language for a resolution. I want -- I've asked for Congress' support to enable the administration to keep the peace. And we look forward to a good, constructive debate in Congress. I appreciate the fact that the leadership recognizes we've got to move before the elections. I appreciate the strong support we're getting from both Republicans and Democrats, and look forward to working with them.The president said:
Question: Mr. President, how important is it that that resolution give you an authorization of the use of force?
The President: That will be part of the resolution, the authorization to use force. If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. But it's -- this will be -- this is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.
Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable.The president said war was "a last resort."
Now the president is claiming that "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bipartisan support." That is not what he said at the time. No one voted to go to war.
Posted by croatoan at November 15, 2005 10:31 AMGood point croatoan--I was calling it a war resolution too, even though I know that's not what it was. Democrats have to remind everyone of that too--that they voted to authorize the use of force if necessary and that the president deemed it necessary by touting false or contested intelligence.
Posted by CG at November 15, 2005 10:38 AMcroatoan, you should write a letter to the editor about that. The MSM isn't going to point it out, so we need to: over and over and over.
Posted by ann at November 15, 2005 11:36 AMAm I remembering this incorrectly, but wasn't Bush pushed into the path of seeking UN approval? The Authorization for Use of Force was predicated on exhausting all other methods before invading. We all know this was foolish to believe that Bush would live up to do, but I think many Dems voted yes thinking they had set in place a mechanism to slow down the march to war.
Posted by michaelw at November 15, 2005 11:39 AMSteve, you mention the rollout of Bush's campaign for dealing with Iraq as August 2002 but I think the 'official' campaign began with the aluminum tubes story in early September 2002. Up to that point, the Bush administration was making noise about the right to engage in preemptive strikes but, with the exception of Cheney's exaggerated speeches, no case was being made, no evidence presented, no critical Cuban Missile Crisis moment where the administration had the obvious goods.
The point about the aluminum tubes is that the timing seemed designed to influence the 2002 midterm election. The Bush Administration had almost a year to decide if the information was valid and there seemed to be a deliberate attempt to minimize, though not eliminate altogether, the involvement and analysis of experts who actually know how to enrich uranium and make bombs. Apparently, if I understand it right, there was one session where nonexperts outvoted the experts when deciding if these tubes were for the purpose of enriching uranium. The nonexperts won which is no way to run an intelligence assessment.
But here's the further point. If the evidence had been strong that these tubes really were for enriching uranium, why did the Bush administration sit on the information for almost a year and do nothing? It's easy to suspect the information became important just before the midterm election when it would have the most impact. Coincidentally, or not, it might take months before critics would point out that the tubes were useless for enriching uranium but useful for what they were intended for: battlefield artillery rockets.
Posted by Craig at November 15, 2005 12:15 PMthe posts here are right. Nobody voted a war declaration on Iraq. They voted the authority to use force if needed. Of course,at the time of the vote, the UN was busy inspecting Iraq and showing by the day that force would not be needed. Not only were the UN inspectors not finding WMD evidence, they were, with Saddam's cooperaton, actually destroying delivery vehicles. No, my friends, it was George W. Bush who went to war when it could have been avoided. He did so in a big hurry because the WMD was only a convenient excuse (right Wolfy?)and he had to get going before the UN made it impossible. He used the stupid Dems and I guarantee that they knew they were being duped but were too scared of the politics to stand up (except for the brave few) and object. Therefore I fault those Dems, and of course the GOPers, for being willing partners in Bush's dementia. Now, if those Dems want to make up for going along with Bush, all they have to do is stand up and repudiate their own actions and demand an immediate exit from Iraq. They can start any time...are you listening Hillary, John,Jay,Joe?
Posted by T2 at November 15, 2005 02:05 PM"Nobody voted a war declaration on Iraq. They voted the authority to use force if needed."
Posted by T2
I don't remember one Democrat recently standing up and saying this. It is the perfect response to this Administration's distortions. Remind people that none of the paths to peace were traveled first before declaring war.
Posted by Judith at November 15, 2005 02:54 PMExcellent point, croatoan. Thanks for reminding us.
Posted by Meteor Blades at November 15, 2005 02:59 PMTh n vt tht cntd, Sddm's chc t stnwll hs blgtns, md th nvtblty mttr f tmng. Th spcs ccstns gnst Bsh prtnd th prpstrs.
[Editor: ignore=off]Benito, my best friend is a Psychologist, PhD. Do you want his number?
Posted by Judith at November 16, 2005 02:38 AM