Nice Quote. But I fear the President has it backwards. The Dems were worrying about the election and speaking pure politics then. Now that the President's "numbers" are low feel they can now speak the truth.

Not saying I agree or disagree. Just stating the obvious.

So RWL, could you please enlighten us? Give me one statement, made before the invasion, concerning Iraq that the President or his administration made that he knew was false at the time.

In other words, RWL, "Democrats Lied, 2000 Died", right?

There you have it. An admission from RW liberal that the Dems are politically expedient liars.

Yes to the last two comments.
The Democrats were (are?) spineless politicians.
What else do you want me to say?
It's obvious to me. Look at Kerry for instance.
He voted for the war and supposedly supported it. Yet now he admits it was a mistake. But only because the poll numbers allows him to.
Fucking snake!

I am an ex-liberal moving toward conservativism with no political party to call my own.

I don't see anything too conservative about the Republicans. Just more politicians.

Well, OK, that's true too.

Alternate titles:

Some things you blog just to piss off the liberals...

Some things you blog just to make sure the truth is spread far and wide...

J.

"Too many people desire to suppress criticism simply because they think that it will give some comfort to the enemy to know that there is such criticism. If that comfort makes the enemy feel better for a few moments, they are welcome to it as far as I am concerned, because the maintenance of the right of criticism in the long run will do the country maintaining it a great deal more good than it will do the enemy, and will prevent mistakes which might otherwise occur."
I wonder What George W. Bush would make of
Senator Robert Taft, nicknamed 'Mr Republican', who delivered this speech in Congress, on December 19, 1941, (12 days after Pearl Harbour).

I am more disturbed by the Senate bill proposing to corner the executive branch into presenting a "plan to exit Iraq" and to give them quartery updates. This non-binding resolution is a Republican attempt to diffuse the Dem's more virulent proposals, but it signals how serious the war against the global war on terrorism is succeeding. This rings too close to how we allowed ourselves to be defeated in Vietnam on the home front.

Steve, if folks had listened to Mr. Taft too closely, we might have lost the battle of Midway and the war. And if we keep listening to the misguided critics of the GWOT, we'll either be buried under radioactive ash or all kneeling toward Mecca 5 times a day in ten years.

RWL, I have been a conservative most of my life and am very frustrated with our "conservative" leaders. I too, feel I am a person without a party.

Crick, did Sen. Taft or any of the leaders of his party ever call FDR a liar WRT the war?

If they did, they were just as wrong as the Dems (and you) are now.

In which case, if you want them as heroes, you can have them.

epador -- please explain. How exactly would have listening to Taft (and tolerating criticism) caused our armed forces to lose the Battle of Midway?

Epador and McGehee, (believe or not as a liberal), I share much of your angst. Iraq with Saddam's underwriting of insurance polices to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers was fueling those homemade Hamas terrorists; a craven action of Saddam,'s that merited a Israeli US sponsored retaliation..I would have gone with that as a 'casas belli' not the unproven WMD or any casual links to Al Queda. The UN 'stay the course' sanctions were causing only misery to Iraqis and helping to line Saddam's, Russian, European and UN officials' such as Koffi's son's pockets . Indeed the West's Hobson's choice Iraqi policy before the invasion, recalls what Henry Ford offered customers of the Model T in 1914, making it available in "any (sanction) color so long as it was black" Having said that, the almost insurmountable or herculean task Bush took on, coupled by poor planning and an occupation p.r. disaster, has made even prevailing in the war difficult. The only silver lining in the insurgent terrorist bombings, is that it has highlighted for Bush, that for all his oversimplifications, Iraq is in for even a rougher ride, if it it abandons it's alignment with some of the features of the provisional democracy set up by the Americans and the UN.

'Now that the President's "numbers" are low feel they can now speak the truth.'

No they were playing '04 politics then and they're playing '06,'08 politics now. They wanted to look like hawks then then and they want to look like cindy sheehan now. they're counting on the electorates short attention span.

Mr. Bush, in claiming others are playing politics, is playing politics.

He's whining to the American public, "Look! Look! They're picking on meeeeeeeeee!"

Yes, they are George. Now grow up and get back in the Oval Office. You have more blank checks to sign.

"Oh goodie! I like to do that."

You go to it, boy.

If anyone is counting on a short attention span, then Mr. Bush is certainly counting on us forgetting all the imbalanced budgets, self-serving business deals and poor strategic choices made during his administration but in specific those regarding this most expensive war.

We used to blame tax-and-spend liberals in Congress. Now we have a don't-tax-but-spend-twice-as-much-as-you've-got President.

"They're picking on meeeeee!"

As well they should. The whole budget should be picked at and gone over with a fine toothed comb. And then de-liced.

Yes, we're all counting on the short attention span of the electorate. Because then we'd forget that the war in Iraq began 32 months ago. If it continues to next Christmas (which is likely) it will have lasted longer than the US participation in World War II.

Hopefully then we'll have forgotten the past, and so we can stay the course even longer without any meaningful and rational public discourse of an exit strategy.

In the past two days both the UK and Iraq have already discussed drawing down Coalition forces and placing Iraqi forces in their place. Yet on Veteran's Day, Mr. Bush rejected even the possibility of such talk.

So much for Armistice Day.

Yes, I recall when it used to be called Armistice Day, and how it was originally to commemorate the end of what people thought to be an intractible, devastating war using true weapons of mass destruction.

On this Veteran's Day, Mr. Bush chose to declare himself out of step with the majority of the US public, and continued to make a case for an endless war in Iraq. To have no Armistice.

Now, I am not claiming that the zealotous, apocalyptic jihadi seeking martyrdom are not out to kill us. They are.

But at this time, we should be focusing on mopping up, handing over the state to the people of Iraq, and planning our withdrawal.

And meanwhile, investigating deeply the exact causes of the war, the failures in intelligence, the utter contradictions and gaps between the 2002 and 2004 CIA report on WMD, and looking into the allegations of corruption to the tune of billions of dollars in the OFF and Iraqi reconstruction projects.

If we do not provide a corruption-free environment for Iraq now, then regardless of whether we stay there or leave, the entire purpose for going there in the first place is dissolved. The last time we can afford are improprieties and even the scent of improprieties.

Mr. Bush can try to point fingers, but a former occupant of the office reminded all that The Buck Stops Here.

He needs to simply accept that burden and not try to smear his opposition.

{Correction: The last -thing- we can afford are improprieties and even the scent of improprieties.}

Peter ... You are aware that you just spent a great deal of time writing nothing, aren't you?