Glad you asked. Here’s Sen Teddy Kennedy, expressing his outrage:
Its deeply regrettable that the president is using Veterans Day as a campaign-like attempt to rebuild his own credibility by tearing down those who seek the truth about the clear manipulation of intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war.
Instead of providing open and honest answers about how we will achieve success in Iraq and allow our troops to begin to come home, the president reverted to the same manipulation of facts to justify a war we never should have fought.
That’s right: it is “deeply regrettable” to Teddy Kennedy and his ilk that the President would use Veteran’s Day as an opportunity to tell soldiers that the cause they are fighting for is noble and right and legitimate—and that they need not feel ashamed of their service or be made to question their commitments. The Democrats want us to all to feel the liberation of Iraq was wrong. And they will dissemble at every opportunity in furtherance of that goal.
Meanwhile, on FOXNews just moments ago, a Democratic representative reacted to Bush’s speech by making the claim that “clearly” Bush brought us to war “on false pretenses.”
Which means that the official Democratic strategy for responding to the President—at least for the time being—is to ignore everything he said and continue making the charges as if he had offered no counters or invoked the Senate Intelligence report.
And you have to admit that from a strategy standpoint, this seems like a better idea than trying to justify the charges—particularly when you know that they are patently and cynically false.
But remember: they love the troops.
And what’s even sadder…it’ll work. The media will focus on the Dems charges and totally ignore whatever the president said.
Days like these makes you could take the Dems and punch them straight in the gonads. But that’s wrong. At least according to that stupid judge.
Whew. For a minute there I thought you were going to say the Dems aren’t patriotic. Gave me quite a scare.
This is encouraging. Encouraging because it demonstrates (again) that the dem party is intellectually and morally bankrupt.
Doubly encouraging because they are reacting to conservatives, rather than the other way around. Politics is about being on offense. If you’re playing defense, you’re losing. By definition.
Well Fred, unfortunately that would be the case had we some actual Republicans in power, but alas, they’re Donkies in an Elephant’s clothing.
I wonder whether Republicans will resort to these kinds of bad-faith tactics when Democrats eventually take back the White House. I see all the arguments against it; but a nice, strong, sustained dose of their own medicine might be the only way to wean them off of this shit. And the only way to gratify the rage a lot of us on the right feel at their attempts to sabotage the war.
I vote tit for tat.
That is a pretty crap rebuttal, even for Ted.
It’s a totally crap rebuttal, especially in that it makes clear that the Great and Powerful Special Committee for Investigating Whether (note the word!) Intelligence Was Manipulated in the Run-up To War has somehow already reached its conclusion, without benefit of hearings. Neato. And on the record.
Will they never learn that there is no memory hole anymore?
TW: larger, as in, It’s a tough job to be a larger doofus than Sen. Kennedy.
I think its deeply regreattable that the traditional veteran’s hearings have been cancelled this year.
And I heard on news radio this morning that based on a poll, 60% of Americans think the President is being dishonest.
60%.
And the Democratic propaganda campaign, aided by their willing accomplices in the media, continues unabated.
I fear for my country.
TV (Harry)
tw: required, as in A modicum of intelligence is required, so beam me up, cuz I don’t see any.
Everyone knows Teddy formed that response last year–well before Bush even considered giving the speech. Teddy’s got two semi-coherent political sound-bytes memorized; all he has to do is change the nouns.
tw: Chappaquiddick: a small island in Massachusetts, off the eastern end of the larger island of Martha’s Vineyard…
Original Message
From: Howard Dean
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2005 3:14 AM
To: DailyKos, Tkennedy, Pandragon, Owillis, NPelosi, KucinichD, CindyS, KLevin, Babs
Subject: Chimpy’s Speech Today
Dear Team:
Remember, keep saying “Bush Lied” over and over. THAT’S THE TALKING POINT. Doesn’t matter what Chimpy/Rove say, just keep repeating it over and over. It’s the only way to get our Redstater imbiciles to turn off their Nascar and start protesting the Chimp.
BUSH. LIED.
Rinse, repeat. Nobody cares what he might have lied about, just that BUSH LIED. We will do fine.
Talk to you soon
HD
regarding the term ‘run-up’
Correct me if I’m wrong but wasn’t that the damn slowest “run-up” in the history of modern warfare?
My recollection of that timeframs involves the US making lots of trips to the United Nations, various hemming and hawing by Congress, resumption of inspections, the UN/US giving Iraq final chances, final-final chances, no-really-this-time-we-mean-it chances, and a two day advance warning during the ‘run-up to the war’ before the actual, you know, war.
The “Guns of August” this ain’t.
Couple that with the belated news of the Hussein Exile effort and how the Arab states couldn’t work out a plan and – hey – maybe Reality is at odds with the Dems.
.
Allah: I hear you, but given that the media is so biased in favor of the left would this ever be allowed to happen? Had the media been giving us an honest presentation of current events, would Bush have to give the speech he gave today?
I think we should try this big lie technique and see if it catches on. Let’s make up something totally false, yet very damning were it true, to say about he Dems. How about that they, uh, I don’t know, diverted money to the insurgency during the ‘04 campaign? It’s total bullshit, but if we all get together and say it constantly, scream it in protests, and send enough letters to the editors, maybe a significant part of the population will start to believe it. I’m curious just to see how many people would buy it after about six months or so.
Welcome to debating in contemporary America.
(no, i’m not at all serious about this. And Lincoln rocks.)
If we dared criticize Madame President H. Clinton this way, you’d see the Sedition section of the U.S. Code dusted off mighty fast, I think. No hesitation on the left to actually use power when they’ve got it.
TW: Europe. Beats me.
Plucked from the future:
Repugs make up lie: “Kerry diverted money to the Iraq insurgency”
Calls for impeachment…
..Bush lied and so do wingnut bloggers…
GREAT TACTIC.
If we dared criticize Madame President H. Clinton this way, you’d see…
Waco Part 2
Ruby Ridge Revisited
Instapundit getting deported to Cuba at submachinegun point
Allah,
Echos to TerryH re: the media.
If the Dems are doing the attack, the press touts the charge. If the Republicans are doing the attack, the press kills the messenger. That’s why Jeff, You, and all the others out in blogdom are important (reinforcing the argument for those who can hear), but there needs to be more (getting the damn wax out of everyone else’s ears). Until more people move away from the television sets, and checking out the fish-wrap, this is a one-sided fight.
What, moron, was it the irony or the parentheses through you off there?
Given the unusual number of trolls commenting in the last two posts it seems pretty clear that, despite what they say, something’s got them a bit riled. It’s gotta be hard on them seeing us a act bit less dour today. Let’s keep it up.
I beleive the line of defense is to claim that the Dem’s did not have the same intellgence as Bush did.
So I assume that they will mean that Bush (or his master whoever that is supposed to be) lied about what was given to them pre-war.
No proof will be offered.
This&That
We interrupt this blog discussion to bring you an important message from Blog Moderator:
Friends, friends, please calm yourselves. Senator Kennedy and his colleagues are merely doing what they have to do. Too much is at stake to take an honest approach to this issue. If the extreme left controllers of the democratic party are ever to control the US Government, with its trillions of dollars spent, and power to shape the future of the larger US economy, it simply has to lie its @ss off.
Take it from Blog Moderator, your outrage will only raise your blood pressure and lead to extended stays in ICUs of large crowded teaching hospitals. Channel your emotions into productive outlets instead. Finish that term paper or lab report. Pay your monthly bills. Call those friends you’ve been neglecting for so long. Things always work out eventually.
So, if we can’t call them unpatriotic for lying about the case for the war to the point that it causes more problems for our troops who are in harms way, when exactly DO we get to call them unpatriotic?
And when do we get to vote ole Teddy-can’t-swim-too-well off the island? The man makes me violently ill.
It’s in the top ten. I used the term escargot-krieg at the time. A lot of critics talked about the rush to war, but we weren’t moving fast at all.
I attended Officer Training School during the summer of 2002. We thought our graduation in September would be like Top Gun’s, i.e. graduate and receive orders to fight. That’s how sure we thought war would resume with Iraq in October.
Being that I consider myself the ideological brethren of Christopher Hitchens, I will not in short order being abandoning the Iraqis to the virulent and misogynistic inclinations of Al Zaqarawi.
Having said that, I find Bush’s position on this matter to be disingenuous. In the period leading up to war, members of the administration, Congress, and various think tanks, repeatedly proffered the idea that the president was privy to intelligence that no one else was. If this was the case, then it is possible that members of the Senate were indeed the victims of bad intelligence.
Ultimately, if the war in Iraq is worth fighting–and I believe that it is–then a critique of the intelligence will make it no less just.
I shouldn’t let this kind of crap get me so riled up – but it STILL does. I thought I was a fairly well educated and informed officer – I guess I’m not Ted’s used lime twist when it comes to strategery though.
I just wish one of those grand strategic wizards would actually point to an example or some evidence. Might make it easier on us thundering morons in the Armed Forces.
Fair enough, grde.
But how does one explain all the Democrats from Clinton, Gore, Albright, Kerry…well, you get the idea, saying how much of a threat Saddam was back in 1998? Why not ask them to explain themselves?
It’s deeply regrettable that Ted Kennedy is a senator.
He had to give up his crown as King of the Stupid. A crown now held with great pride by Jesse Jackson.
Well, in my mind then that would be with-holding information, and a great deal more serious than manipulating information, which is the current magic word.
In fact, if he with-held information to the Intelligence Committee that would seem to be an impeachment worthy offense and you would be hearing more than the current bombast and bluster.
My guess?
Dems don’t have to react very much to this speech. It is being pitched as Bush ‘lashing back’ at critics.
The implication that Bush lied has caught on, no proving of it need be done. Can’t be done, because any politician doing that would be throwing the Clintons out with the bathwater.
This is a Presidency in Crisis, what with all the corruption and Katrina and the 2000th military death and the anarchists protesting the US in Argentina, and all Bush has to do to get it back on track is compromise with the Dems.
It is that simple.
Democratic representative: “‘clearly’ Bush brought us to war ‘on false pretenses.’”
Seems to me I read somewhere that whenever Pravda was about to tell a particularly bald-faced lie, they’d introduce it with the phrase, “As is well known….”
kelly,
You make an excellent point. One would assume that the Democrats would have had access to the best available intelligence during the Clinton presidency. However, in my opinion, I don’t neccessarilly think that this point is related to the current situation for the following reason.
Let us assume–as I do–that the best available intelligence indicated that Iraq was indeed in possession of WMDs. There were, however, dissenting voices. Yes, I know most of these voices were either current or past members of UN inspections teams, but nonetheless there were dissenting voices. Given this combination of factors, I would have been inclined to proceed with caution. However, it was during this period that the administration and its pundits began to argue that they had intelligence that no one else had. If I was in this situation, I would have had to trust the president. However, if I later found out that this supposed priveleged information was in large part exaggerated, I would have no problem calling him on it. Do you think that the Reps. would would have behaved any differently had Clinton or Gore issued a similar proclamation?
Ultimately, president Bush does not deserve all the blame for this situation. President Clinton played a role in subverting the inspections process when he attempted to turn it into an intelligence gathering operation.
Personally, I wish the Reps. and Dems. would quit this petty bickering and figure out how to bring this issue to a close in an expedient fashion. Staying the course, as Bush advocates, is not going to work. And I will be the first one to admit that the Dems. have no coherent strategy whatsoever.
I thought the Democrats did funnel money to the insurgents, they may as well since they otherwise lend aid and comfort to enemy. Did not the Clinton administration solicit and receive money from the ROC. Would not put anything past the Democrat slime.
Well yeah, to the masses, the media and most of the Congress. But the sticky point to me here; and I may be wrong, I don’t know the details for sure, is the President and all the Intel branches are required to share all intelligence with the Senate Intelligence Committee. So any manipulation had to go on right in front of the d’Emocrats on the committee. The other option is the info was withheld, which would be so much larger I hardly think the dems would be as demure as this.
If I was in this situation, I would have had to trust the president.
oops
My take on this all along has been: what reason would the President have for lying? He was off the charts with the war in Afghanistan, I’m talkin’ top of the pops. They had to know that Iraq was going to be trouble, why fuck with it going into an election? I mean 2004 and Kerry would have been a cakewalk if not for Iraq. So unless you truly believe it was to avenge his daddy, or so Halliburton could rake in that uber-fuckin’ 1.5% obscene profit, there had to be a damn good reason to do it.
Ted Kennedy is a liar. Shocking, I know. But especially irksome when he knows that there’s already been a bipartisan investigation of the intelligence that unanimously found no manipulation of the data by the administration:
I’m still trying to figure out how the handling of Iraq is considered to be such a failure. Because it didn’t magically transform into Germany or Japan the minute we rolled into Bagdad? Well, neither did Germany or Japan! (Meaning they didn’t immediately tranform into democratic societies the minute the surrenders were signed.) The Iraqi security forces get stronger and better each day. The lives of Iraqis are steadily improving, especially now that more and more Sunnis are recognizing that the Baathist days are gone for good. So is its primary failure its lack of perfection? Not being smarmy, but I just don’t get it.
World War II is the gold standard for being a just war. Must all declarations of war and authorizations for use of force meet that level of justification? Saddam did not pose a direct threat to America in the sense of an invading army. Conquest did not appear to be the aim, just destruction of our society and it’s freedoms.
I don’t think we should just swagger about and bully the world into doing as we wish just because we are the strongest nation ever. That strength should be used with caution, but not timidity. To our credit, we are reluctant to use even a fraction of our full strength, knowing the level of destruction in our arsenal. But the world also needs to understand that it really is a bad idea to step on Superman’s cape. It keeps us from needing to use a stronger response when dealing with the fools who confuse restraint with timidity.
So the intelligence wasn’t perfect. Shocking! It’s never been perfect. Based on what they had available, the Administration made a judgement call. After reviewing as much of what they had as I can, I think they made the right call.
Part of what pisses me off about this situation is the assumption that any imperfection is evidence of a conspiracy. All of the people gathering and analyzing the data, formulating the policies, are drawn from the exact same gene pool as everyone reading this. They are some of the sharpest we’ve got, but they are neither omniscient nor omnipotent.
tw: possible. It is possible that Ted is right. It is also possible (and more likely) that Ted is sober. And thin.
“clearly” … “false pretenses”
You know what I’m really fond of is how Fox ALWAYS puts these jerkoffs on the air. Apparently the Likudnik Network is the only one that understands if you give the fools you disagree with airtime, they will smother themselves TO DEATH with it.
This is one of the many reasons–and there are many–that I so often call out “RUPERT!” during sex.
At least they’re entering the investigation with an open mind.
NPR reported on Bush’s speech as a bizarre “deja vu” campaign speech received favorably by “hand-picked” audience members. They reported fawningly that Kerry accused Bush of using a national holiday to “play politics.”
Apparently denying accusations of lying is beyond the pale for someone who is so clearly a lying liar who tells lies.
A question for the reactionary leftist appeasenicks: if we are losing in Iraq, why is Al Queda moving opertions out of Iraq and on to other (soft) targets in countries like Jordan?
Could it be that they (Al Q) are losing, know they are losing and are desperate to demonstrate their “power” and “expertise” elsewhere?
It turned out to be a fascinating speech full of true-blue Trotskyite/Noecon clichés about the eventual collapse of the Islamic Al-Qaeda “system†from the burden of “its internal contradictions†and the firm presidential belief that its leaders will soon be “joining the dustbins of historyâ€Â…beyond the irony of listening to a right-wing Republican leader using 19th century vintage Marxist metaphors, Dubya’s delivery was clearly below (his own already sub-par) personal average, and the rehearsed hurrahs sounded less enthusiastic than usual- maybe because Karl and Scooter were busy elsewhere and didn’t have enough time to prepare properly for this staged show of martial masculinity.
Anyway, the following 2 points in Bush’s speech caught my attention as they perfectly capture the essence of “Neo-conservative†Pharisaic propaganda:
1) “…the militant network wants to use the vacuum created by an American retreat to gain control of a country, a base from which to launch attacks and conduct their war against non-radical Muslim governmentsâ€Â
This type of talk is particularly racist and offensive: 1.4 billion Muslims around the world will be glad to learn that the US government has officially segmented them into two broad categories: “Radical/Al-Qaeda types†and “Non-radical Muslims†[sic]
2) “…our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of lifeâ€Â
That’s an outright lie, which has been propagandized on a massive scale since September 11th 2001 by Wolfowitz, Perl, Libby, Sharon, Cheney & Co.
As veteran Middle-East experts such as former senior CIA officer Michael Scheuer have said repeatedly, this canard about “Bin Laden’s alleged desire to shatter the American way of life†was (and still is) the ultimate justification of the invasion of Iraq…simply because it was “market-tested†extensively by the White House and proved to fly well with focus groups and folks in the heartland.
See link below for more on Mike Scheuer’s sharp criticism of the Bush administration
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/11/12/60minutes/main655407.shtml
Dubya’s mass repetition of the same failed arguments ad nauseam now threatens to unmask the dirty secrets of Neocon statecraft: in the future, he should keep his advanced Pharisaic talking points algorithm under wraps lest he reveal his intellectual edge to the enemies of freedom/democracy/Zion/McDonalds burgers/Philadelphia cheese/Alabama banana pudding/you name your favorite American dish and call the PR & Public Information Management department at the Israeli embassy in Houston so they can add it to the list of heartland gastronomic liberties that constitute the bedrock of culinary freedom on which this great nation was built!
We won’t let Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein destroy our way of life with their poisonous Gallic Gaullist soufflés and other radioactive “yellow cakes†cum hummus sauce cooked in the dirty Baathist/terrorist/evil/satanic/Islamo-fascist kitchens of Damascus and Tickrit.
Vive le Liberty!
Vive el Presidente!
Bmoe,
Well yes, I agree, under the strictest interpretation of the law the administration is required to share all intelligence with the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. I for one, don’t believe that this takes place, no matter who is occupying the White House.
I specifically remember seeing SOD Rumsfeld espouse the idea that the administration had access to different intelligence in the months leading up to the war. I know he made such a claim on MTP. I will try to find the transcript.
As for the administration falsifying intelligence, I have never made this claim. Nor do I believe that the Intel. Community was pressured to make the case for war. What I do believe however, is that the administration exaggerated the available intelligence and over looked dissenting voices. It is possible that this was the prudent and necessarry course of action. I am not saying that it wasn’t.
However, I don’t think that it is then appropriate to call your opponents revisionist, when in essence that is what the administration is doing. They are saying: “well we thought they had WMDs; the best intelligence said so. Well it now seems that we were wrong; however, it is not our fault. It’s the Intel. Community’s fault. And anyhow that wasn’t really the reason we went to war. We really wanted to overthrow Saddam; establish a democracy; and reform the region.”
As I have stated earlier, these last three goals are laudable and righteous. But they are not what the administration stated as its’ primary goals in the period leading up to the war.
I just wish that the administration would say we messed up. The intel was bad, we overstated the case for war, and had no plan whatsoever for securing the peace in the period after the invasion. I think their failure to admit this is what has hurt their standing with the public. Yes there are a few idiots on my side of the isle that are going to say we told you so, but who cares what they think. I certainly don’t.
Vega, give your previous lies about the Cincinnati riots, how dare you show your face to repeat more lies?
Or are you one of those oh-so-clever, post-and-dump trolls?
“…our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of lifeâ€Â
And they’ve been trying since the time of the Prophet.
The total ignorance of history on the part of the reactionary left is nothing short of astonishing.
It also contributes to some really, really incoherant anti-semitic rants on the internet, too.
“…“our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of lifeâ€Â…And they’ve been trying since the time of the Prophet. The total ignorance of history on the part of the reactionary left is nothing short of astonishingâ€Â
Well, actually I’m not so sure dude…
For the record, I have no partisan affiliation, and I’ve stopped voting altogether roughly 13 years ago- the last time I cast a ballot was actually for George H. Bush!
If anything, I’m more of an “old school†Bob Taft Republican, hence my hatred of “Neocons†and other neo-Marxist Wilsonians posing as Republicans.
Your shallow remarks on the “Islamic terrorist threat†show a complete ignorance of the topic at hand: do you speak Aramaic, Greek and classical Arabic? Did you the read the Koran?
If not, how can you lecture us on “the Prophet’s ideology�
The truth is that the Wahhabi Islamic terrorist creed is just a simplified/modernized (and thus more lethal) form of “Hambalismâ€Â.
Hambalism being one of Islam’s four main theological and jurisprudential schools of thought (called “Mazâheb†in ancient Arabic): the founder of that “mother of all death cults†was a fanatical Arabian preacher named Sheikh Ahmed bin Hambal, born around 780 AD
Interestingly, Sheikh Bin Hambal hated Christianity and other “Pagan†[sic] religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism…and was literally fascinated by the Old Testament and Jewish Law: he looked upon Moses (and not prophet Muhammad or Imam ‘Ali…) as the ultimate role model for “truly Islamic†religious, ethical, and strategic/military behavior- hence his praising acts of terror and guerilla tactics called “Al-Ghazû†against better equipped “Pharaohnic government troopsâ€Â
Listen to the daily sermons on Saudi TV and you’ll see for yourself that Wahhabi-style thugs are the true heirs to Sheikh Bin Hambal’s born-again Hebrew worldview.
No wonder Usama Bin Laden calls George W. Bush “the Pharaoh of our timeâ€Â, thus aping Old Testament political metaphors instead of using authentically original Arab references taken from the Koran- after all he could have cited instead the shah of Persia or the emperor of Byzantium who were personal enemies of Prophet Muhammad!!
In fact, Wahhabi/Al-Qaeda Islamic terrorists are modern day Hebrew zealots: their mindset is clearly identical to that of Yahweh fanatics of the 1st century AD, and we must do with them what Roman emperor Titus did 2,000 years ago with their sinister Pharisaic predecessors.
The Wikipedia definition of zealotry is excellent in many ways- check out the link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zealots
“…Zealots were a Jewish political movement in the 1st century AD which sought to incite the people of Iudaea Province to rebel against the Roman Empire and expel it from the country by force of arms during the Great Jewish Revolt (AD 66-70). When the Romans introduced the Imperial cult, the Jews had rebelled and been put down.
The Zealots were opposed to Roman rule and sought to eliminate it by violent means. Their activities included raids on Jewish settlements and eliminating Jewish collaborators, as well as inciting the Jews to fight Rome and each other if necessary. Josephus paints a very bleak picture of their murderous activities as they instituted a “REIGN OF TERROR†in the build-up to the Temple’s destruction…â€Â
“For the record, I have no partisan affiliation, and I’ve stopped voting altogether roughly 13 years ago-…”
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, we are in the presence of a real, honest to ghod idiotarian.
Idiotarian, maybe—but definitely a CHICKENVOTER!