« Senate Republicans Won't Block Dem's Iraq Bill | Main | 24 Thread »

At Least He Didn't Call a Press Conference to Announce This

Chuck Hagel is still against the war in Iraq and he is still speaking out against President Bush. What might actually be new though is that he is coming pretty close to saying the president should be impeached over Iraq.

Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a frequent critic of the war, stopped short of calling for Bush's impeachment. But he made clear that some lawmakers viewed that as an option should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war.

"Any president who says, I don't care, or I will not respond to what the people of this country are saying about Iraq or anything else, or I don't care what the Congress does, I am going to proceed -- if a president really believes that, then there are -- what I was pointing out, there are ways to deal with that," said Hagel, who is considering a 2008 presidential run.

Is Hagel actually considering a presidential run? Or is he just considering the consideration of a presidential run? Okay, now that I got that out of my system, here is something that I don't ever hear anyone discuss. All these Democrats who say Bush was wrong to ever go into Iraq in the first place, never mention that at that time public opinion was in favor of going into Iraq. Those saying the president is wrong to go against public opinion now, seem to think it would have been fine for him to have gone against public opinion in 2003. For the record, I don't think he is going against public opinion now. Polls have shown that even those who doubt the surge will work, hope that it does. At least they do if they are not Democrat politicians invested in defeat. Just because Democrats were elected to the majority in November does not mean the public supports everything they propose. In fact, their poll numbers are slipping close to GOP November levels. That is the big problem with trying, as Bill Clinton did, to govern by opinion poll. Public opinion is not only fallible, but it is not always shaped by the most reliable or accurate information.

Update: David Limbaugh points out the ignorance displayed in Hagel's reckless rhetoric.

More commentary from Hyscience and Captain Ed.

(This is cross-posted at Right Wing News where I am guest blogging today.)


TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference At Least He Didn't Call a Press Conference to Announce This:

» The Crimson Blog linked with Can’t we just vote Hagel off the island?

» Hyscience linked with Hagel's Use Of 'I' Word The Last Nail?

Comments (37)

The Dems ran on a "change o... (Below threshold)
kathie:

The Dems ran on a "change of direction" platform, what ever that meant! If Hagel wants to be listened to he needs to vote to cut off funds. That is the only thing that the President needs to listen to.

"should Bush choose to push... (Below threshold)
plainslow:

"should Bush choose to push ahead despite public sentiment against the war." But when public sentiment was for the war, there was nothing wrong with going against it, right.

Hagel was on the short list... (Below threshold)
Scrapiron:

Hagel was on the short list of wannabe presidential contenders. Right now Hagel will be president the day after hell freezes over. His traitorous mouth had made him a democrat and Shrillary will have him knocked off if he gets in her way.

But when public sentimen... (Below threshold)
Brian:

But when public sentiment was for the war, there was nothing wrong with going against it, right.

Public sentiment was aligned with Congress and the administration in being for retaliating against Afghanistan. Public sentiment has never been for invading Iraq.

Brian, is your memory the o... (Below threshold)
Zelsdorf Ragshaft III:

Brian, is your memory the only thing short about you?

John Kerry's Statement on I... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:

John Kerry's Statement on Iraq Before the War:

The Senate worked to urge action in early 1998. I joined with Senator McCain, Senator Hagel, and other Senators, in a resolution urging the President to "take all necessary and appropriate actions to respond to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end his weapons of mass destruction program." That was 1998 that we thought we needed a more serious response.

Link

Mmmmm...So Hagel thought Iraq was a threat and wanted President Clinton take all necessary and appropriate actions.


"At least they do if the... (Below threshold)
dalleceneri:

"At least they do if they are not Democrat politicians invested in defeat"...Lorie Byrd

One of the dumbest and silliest partisan droolings conceivable.

I might point out that befo... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

I might point out that before the war not everyone had caught on to the fact that the Bush administration is full of incompetent, delusional idiots, and thus some people still actually tusted the administration. Since that time, the truth has come out, and the public has gotten wise to Bush and his entourage (the authors of, and posters to, this website notwithstanding). As a result, the public is against them. It's very simple.

Public sentiment ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Public sentiment has never been for invading Iraq.

Wow, the left used to wait a good decade before rewriting history. I guess they just get emboldened more with the moonbats falling for everything so easily.

Link

March 2003
A Gallup poll taken after the beginning of the war showed a 62% support for the war, lower than the 79% in favor at the beginning of the Persian Gulf War

April 2003
A poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News found that 72% of Americans supported the Iraq War, despite finding no evidence of chemical or biological weapons

A poll made by CBS found that 60% of Americans said the Iraq War was worth the blood and cost even if no WMD are ever found

May 2003
A Gallup poll made on behalf of CNN and the newspaper USA Today concluded that 79% of Americans thought the Iraq War was justified, with or without conclusive evidence of illegal weapons. 19% thought weapons were needed to justify the war

Since that time, ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Since that time, the truth has come out

My guess as to why you left out specifics "on the truth" was due to the fact it usually comes off pretty "moon-bat-ish".

Go ahead, lay them on us......and please don't start with the "Bush planned 9-11" crap.....mmmmm-Kay.

A Gallup poll taken a... (Below threshold)
Brian:

A Gallup poll taken after the beginning of the war...

We were talking about going against public sentiment before the war. After the war began, of course public approval increases, as people let nationalistic feelings make them hope that Bush knows what he's doing. And then that sinks as they realize he didn't. But that's all beside the point.

Let's look at some poll numbers BEFORE the war, taken from your same source:

A poll conducted at the time [January 2003] by The New York Times and CBS News released showed even less support for the US-led war. Approximately 2 out of 3 respondents wanted the government to wait for the UN inspections to end, and only 31% supported using military force immediately.
Most polls showed that support for the invasion, depending on how the question is phrased, was at between 55-65%... However, the same polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see more evidence against Iraq, and for UN weapons inspections to continue before making an invasion. For example, an ABC news poll reported than only 10% of Americans favored giving the inspectors less than a few weeks; 41% favored giving them a few weeks, 33% a few months, and 13% more than that.

My point stands.

"Most polls showed that sup... (Below threshold)
Lorie Byrd:

"Most polls showed that support for the invasion, depending on how the question is phrased, was at between 55-65%... However, the same polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see..."

55-65 percent. Yeah, Bush was really going against the will of the people. As for the "depending on how the question is phrased" line, that is my point now. Depending on how the question is phrased, you can get pretty good support for the surge. Hint: If you ask people if they would like for Bush to continue his illegal war killing innocent women and children and wasting the lives of U.S. soldiers, you won't get much support. If you ask if the US military should be given a chance to pursue victory by implementing the plan formed by General Petraeus who was confirmed by the Dem-led Senate, you get more support. I repeat, that is why Presidents who govern my opinion poll are not leading. They are following. Sticking a finger in the wind. Bush leads.

Brian:My point... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

My point stands.

Odd isn't it?

Assuming your quoted numbers are correct brian (I haven't looked) and people overwhelmingly supported the war in the three months after the invasion (and no WMD's were found at that point) it makes you pre-war polls relatively meaningless.

The public knew more about the war after the fact than before yet support went up during those three months

Which means the "point" you're standing on amounts to dog squat.

And BTW, <a href="http://ww... (Below threshold)
marc:

And BTW, this poll can be added to the collection that was taken 5 moths after the fact.

The news from Iraq is mostly bad, and criticism of President Bush from Democrats is relentless. But nearly two-thirds -- 63% -- of Americans say the war in Iraq was worth fighting, a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows

At that point the public started to have reservations oj the long term plan they still were fully in support of taking out Saddam.

55-65 percent. Yeah, Bus... (Below threshold)
Brian:

55-65 percent. Yeah, Bush was really going against the will of the people.

I often criticize you, Lorie, for omitting the part of a citation that works against your point. I have to admit that now you're actually including the part that works against your point. So I guess that's progress.

To recap...

the same polls also suggested that most Americans would still like to see more evidence against Iraq, and for UN weapons inspections to continue before making an invasion. For example, an ABC news poll reported than only 10% of Americans favored giving the inspectors less than a few weeks; 41% favored giving them a few weeks, 33% a few months, and 13% more than that.

Adding up the numbers shows that 87% were against an imminent invasion.

that is why Presidents who govern my opinion poll are not leading. They are following. Sticking a finger in the wind. Bush leads.

An argument can be made on that subject. However, there is also something to be said about a president who acts contrary to the wishes of both the American people and the Congress.

"The Truth" which has come ... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

"The Truth" which has come out, a partial (very) list which does not at all include conspiracy theories about Bush planning 9-11 (if this sounds moonbatish, well, i suppose maybe that is because the truth has a left wing bias):

1) no weapons of mass destruction
2) no plan for post-invasion
3) complete lack of understanding by the war "planners" of what the consequences of their actions would be ('matter of weeks'), and subsequent strengthening of Iran
4) creating a situation where al-Qaeda is now occupying Iraq, unlike the before situation
5) complete and total botch of response to hurricane katrina, topped off by Bush commenting that man in charge of this debacle had done a "heckuva job"
6) harriet miers nomination to SC (wtf???)
7) Dick Cheney in general (liar extraordinaire)
8) USA scandal
9) lying by Cheney, Libby, Gonzalez, Rove, any number of others
10) scandal upon scandal
11) complete inability to do anything about the Israel/palestine situation
12) big talk on North Korea, but no action or even clue of how to take action, other than to suggest talks, as most informed obervers/officials had been saying all along
13) for you right wingers, illegal immigration

I'm tired now but I think you get the idea. I am sure you will disagree with my characterizations, but I don't think the american people do. If you have a better theory of why Bush lacks credibility, let's hear it, as ling as it does not contain blaming the media. my response to your blamiong the democrats is to point out that the republicans had control of both houses of congress for 6 years, and green lighted everything, so if that's the best you've got, that's pretty sad.

The public knew more abo... (Below threshold)
Brian:

The public knew more about the war after the fact than before

We did? What did we know? That the US military could crush the Iraqi military with ease, and symbolically topple large bronze statues of evil dictators? Pfft! I knew that before the war too! But the first months revealed nothing about WMDs or a nuclear program. It was only when we realized that there was nothing to reveal did support wane. But again, beside the point of what sentiment was before the war.

Brain:However,... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brain:

However, there is also something to be said about a president who acts contrary to the wishes of both the American people and the Congress.

Ahem... the Congress approved the war.

Polls shmolls, before the I... (Below threshold)
Knightbrigade:

Polls shmolls, before the Iraq war or now, either way Hagel is an ASSWIPE period. The faster Republicans get him out of politics, never-mind the Republican party the better.
let the moonbats rant.......

Brian:But agai... (Below threshold)
marc:

Brian:

But again, beside the point of what sentiment was before the war.

Asshat... having eye trouble this evening? What was your quote of me? ("The public knew more about the war after the fact than before")

You counter with this: "We did? What did we know? That the US military could crush the Iraqi military with ease,"

What is it about the simple phrase "after the fact" you fail to comprehend?

Slingshot,You bring ... (Below threshold)
Allen:

Slingshot,
You bring up some very good points. Most Americans are working one or two jobs just to get by. The middle class is almost gone. If the current conditions continue we will have the rich and the poor, and every country that has had that ended up in a upheaval. Is another "Boston Tea Party" coming to this country? It very well could be.

The sad part is that the current SNAFU WITH the Justice Dept. is only one, of many things, but it might be the one that, if the real truth comes out, will harm this country in many ways. I honestly think 99.9% of Americans want to believe in our justice system. But what it sounds like our leading Justice Dept. has been corrupted.

The President said all Justice employees would testify before the Senate Justice Committee. Now one of the main players has said no, she is claiming the 5th. Fine, that is her right. It is also the right of the Senate Justice Committee to give her complete immunity if she testify's. Then she would have to appear and tell the truth, and would the shit hit the fan or not? Who knows.

My question is what is she trying to hide? Appearing before a Senate Committee is not appearing in a court of law, so what is being covered up?

I realize the left is yelling coverup, etc, and the right is saying no problem, but if you honestly believe in equal justice for all, then you must believe that the Justice Dept. should be truthful, and all key players testify under oath.

And comparing testimony before a Senate hearing to a criminal case is stupid. But some people will try to use that song and dance. That shows their IQ. And those same people must also believe that their (now in power) gov't can do no wrong and that everyone is out to get them.

BS is what it is. Was our Justice system corrupted? That is the question. If this (Republican) gov't can do it, what is to stop the Democratic gov't from doing it?

This does affect all Americans, no matter what political party you belong to, and the BS you spin for that party. It can and will hurt all Americans.


1) no weapons of ... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
1) no weapons of mass destruction

Yet a Democrat president bombed Iraq for those same weapons of mass destruction. In doing so he pissed off the UN and OBL issued fatwas calling for revenge against the United States.

2) no plan for post-invasion

Elections held, government formed, new military being trained and areas of security being turned over throughout the country.

3) complete lack of understanding by the war "planners" of what the consequences of their actions would be ('matter of weeks'), and subsequent strengthening of Iran

Sanctions being imposed on Iran, internally Iranians turning against Mullah rule, announcements of Russia and China applying pressure, Europe coming around after British troop seizure. Iran weakening their world position daily.

4) creating a situation where al-Qaeda is now occupying Iraq, unlike the before situation

The previous administration claimed al-Qaeda and Iraq were conspiring with WMD. That was the justification for bombing the aspirin factory in Sudan.

It was bi-partisan consensus that Saddam would transfer WMD to these groups to finally achieve his revenge for the Gulf War.

5) complete and total botch of response to hurricane katrina, topped off by Bush commenting that man in charge of this debacle had done a "heckuva job"

I worked hurricane Floyd when I was stationed at Fort Bragg. It is the job of the locals to call FEMA for support. There is no crystal ball to know where to magically appear. Somebody has to request help. The Dem governor and mayor of New Orleans didn't follow their own plans. Need to see those pics of buses that were supposed to evacuate the population out?

The governor isn't even going to seek reelection because her poll numbers are in the tank for her obvious NON-action.

6) harriet miers nomination to SC (wtf???)

Huh...WTF you ask....it was conservatives that forced Bush's hand in nominating someone else.

7) Dick Cheney in general (liar extraordinaire)

Pure lefty rant of generalities and no specifics.

8) USA scandal

Brain farts coming trying to think of something so I'll type "USA scandal"

9) lying by Cheney, Libby, Gonzalez, Rove, any number of others

Again generalities posted on lefty web sites for moonbat consumption. But you are trying hard to think of something I see.

10) scandal upon scandal

Now you are grasping.

11) complete inability to do anything about the Israel/palestine situation

Been going on for years. Buck was passed from previous administration.

12) big talk on North Korea, but no action or even clue of how to take action, other than to suggest talks, as most informed obervers/officials had been saying all along

Bullshit...multilateral talks are intended to have North Korea abide to deals with China also, thus keeping them from cheating again. Democrats screwed the pooch so bad with their deal it is now written in the rulebook as "what not to do".

North Korea is under the pressure, not the U.S. and N.K. have plans in the works of shutting down their facilities as we type due to those pressures.

13) for you right wingers, illegal immigration

Gag...for you lefties....what?....open borders?

Whatever....

Nice try. But a tad bit "moon-bat-ish".

Brian, is your memory th... (Below threshold)
Clay:

Brian, is your memory the only thing short about you?

Now that, that is funny.

What is it about the sim... (Below threshold)
Brian:

What is it about the simple phrase "after the fact" you fail to comprehend?

Perhaps that a comment about what we knew after the fact is, as I stated, "beside the point of what sentiment was before the war", which was the actual point of discussion before you brought up "after the fact".

Oh, wait... that must be what you failed to comprehend. Having eye trouble this evening?

>Brian, is your memory t... (Below threshold)
Brian:

>Brian, is your memory the only thing short about you?
Now that, that is funny.

Well, it would have been if it hadn't been so easy to shoot down his snark. But if that's what humors you...

Ahem... the Congress app... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Ahem... the Congress approved the war.

Ahem... ignoring, for the moment, the falsity of that statement, the comment about how well Bush is responding to the wishes of the American people and the Congress referred to now. You seem to have a problem keeping track of the time periods relevant to the various discussions going on tonight.

Brian crashes and burns. <... (Below threshold)
Jo:

Brian crashes and burns.

jumpin joe-i provi... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

jumpin joe-

i provided you with some examples, and as predicted, you did not agree with them. so be it. you have still not provided a theory as to why Bush has no credibility- if it is not for the reasons I listed, then why is it?

as to your responses to my list:

1) your response means nothing, because THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND, and Bush started this war. (Blame Clinton response #1)

2) apparently in your world all is going splendidly in Iraq. you should inquire as to whether there are policy making positions open in the White House.

3) planners still had no clue. if Iran's position is weakening now, it is weakening from a vastly stronger position that that form which it would have weakened pre-invasion.

4) Sudan is not in Iraq. It is still true that al-Qaeda has set up shop in Iraq only after the invasion. (Blame Clinton response #2.)

5) The fact that other people also did a bad job does not mean that Bush et al did a good job.

6) Bush initially proposed Miers. it is irrelevant from where the pressure came to pull her nomination. It is not as if the democrats supported this nomination. I am addressing what it means, to me at least, as to the truth about Bush coming out (incompetent, delusional idiot).

7) Cheney (7&9): went on meet the press and said that there was a connection between Iraq and 9-11. Months later he went on meet the press and denied making the claim that he previously made on meet the press.

8) umm, I don't think so. i guess if Gonzalez loses his job, you will blame this on a brain fart. I guess if the AG of the United States is forced out, it's really not a big deal to you. I happen to disagree. Gonzalez was bush's choice, and he is publicly turning out to be a crony. to people who are not hardcore Bush partisans like yourself, this actually is important.

9) generalities on lefty web sites? dude, you are seriously delusional. no wonder "your guys" are losing elections left and right. Cheney- see #7. Libby- convicted of perjury. Gonzalez- claims had nothing to do with USA firings, yet mounting piles of evidence clearly demonstrate otherwise; aides are now taking the fifth as opposed to testifying. Rove- where does one begin? if his mouth is open, than one can only assume lies are coming out. etc.

10) do I really have to list them? what difference does it make whether I call them by name? (examples: USA, Libby, Katrina, botched intelligence, mission accomlished, Miers, Abramoff [I realize this is not of Bush's doing, but it adds to the overall impression], there are others, I am sure you can think of a few more])

11) the fact that a pre-existing problem exists is not an excuse to stop even trying to solve it. buck passing from Clinton not an adequate excuse. COndoleez Rice is not trying to do something to address this problem, but it is frankly too little, too late for the administration to save itself. perhaps, though, if we are lucky, it could lay the groundwork for a future president to make some headway. (Blame Clinton response #3. In addition, by your logic, I should also blame Presidents Bush I and Reagan)

12) good. so talks work (errr, we could have been doing this all along). I am glad to see you now take the word of the North Koreans because of the fact that Republicans are talking to them. If they go back on their word, I am sure you will find a way to blame Clinton. Is it perhaps the case that there is no good option with NK, and so the best solution, if not a good one, is to maintain dialog with them in order to try and mange the problem as best possible? if you know of a good military solution please feel free to describe it. again, there may be foreign policy openings in the white house, and i am sure they will be all ears to hear your theory.

13) this is not about what "lefties" think. i am listing why people have turned against Bush, from all ends of the political spectrum, and it is a fact that many conservatives are very displeased with Bush about his position on this issue, including, I imagine, yourself.

ATTN RIGHT WING: blaming Clinton is no longer a valid answer. he is not the President. At some point (now) Bush will be forced to take some responsibility. In addition, if my answers sound moonbatish to you, this is apparently because the truth has a left wing bias. your responses are to justify and spin Bush's errors, and to blame Clinton. you may have not noticed, but this is not working very well any more, neither from a propaganda perpsective, nor from a solving actual problems perspective.

please provide your non-moonbat explanation of bush's problems, outside of blaming the media (which is both laughable, and like blaming the ref when your team loses) or blaming the democrats (again, this is totally laughable and utterly unbelievable given the democrats position of utter weakness up untill recently). in my list I tried to provide reasons why the public has turned on Bush. i think this is an accurate list, regardless of whether you agree with the substance of the reasons (like Clinton's BJ was the reason for the Monica scandal, regardless of whether I think that was a bullshit hubbub or not). if you think the public has not turned on Bush, you can explain how that is so, but if you do not at least recognize that fact, you are much more delusional than probably even Bush himself. if you need help, I assume you can go to Rush's web site for some talking points.

CORRECTION: my response in... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

CORRECTION: my response in 11 above should read Rice is NOW trying, not NOT.

Blame Clinton res... (Below threshold)
Jumpinjoe:
Blame Clinton response

This is what the left fails to understand; that being Democrats believed Saddam had WMD. It has nothing to do with blaming Clinton but rather consistency from Democrats.

Democrats that voted for the war to include people like Hagel knew just as much as the President. If they didn't they would not have supported President Clinton's actions regarding Iraq over eight years.

Personally I have no problem calling a Democrat a traitor (or Hagel) that supported Clinton and Bush on Iraq then changed their mind while troops lives are on the line based on polls.

I'm a Republican and I believed Democrats that claimed Iraq was direct threat to the United States. Why wouldn't I? Why would they lie?

Public perception has been manipulated by focusing on the negative (if it bleeds it leads) while totally ignoring everything else. I believe this is due in part to the fact Democrats were afraid their constituency would rally behind a Republican President and their power would further erode.

It is almost impossible to read a "terrorist" quote and not be able to tell if it was a terrorist that said it or a Democrat. That's how bad it is. Democrats picked sides and history will judge them for their cowardly incompetence.

What is really "moon-bat-ish" is anyone believing they were duped by the President or V.P. That talking point is for the non-thinking simpleminded that just go along with anything that fits in their world view without questioning the source. (I.e. most anti-war protests are sponsored by communist front groups) Hence, I have no problem referring to lefties as "useful idiots".

Jumpin, you are wasting you... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Jumpin, you are wasting your fingers trying to convince a lefty loon about anything GW. Their hate is massive. So much so that they twist a truth here and there just enough to confuse and provoke. They always meet their match here. Your points were right on.

If Jesus was here in human form and they MSM saw him walk on water, their headline would be: Jesus Can't Swim. ww

jumpin joe & wild willie:</... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

jumpin joe & wild willie:

as I suspected, your arguments generally amount to blaming clinton, the media and the democrats. you have made no other effort to explain why Bush has lost credibility with the American people since the beginning of the war. My antipathy towards Bush is legitimate for all the reasons I listed. I am hardly alone here.

I do not claim to have been duped by P & VP, as I thought they were full of crap all along. A lot of other people now feel duped, or so claim, and this is reflected in the pre and post invasion polling. this is not a case of me twisting the truth- this IS the truth! The fact is, I am wasting my time here, as you all refuse to recognize what is really going on. Enjoy your future permanent minority party status. I am trying to help you.

please provide an explanation which does not involve blaming the democrats or the media (the democrats also blame the media for a lot of their problems, but i have not mentioned any of this). it is becoming apparent to me that you can't. the reason you can't is because that is the only explanation you have left, the only one which still allows you to carry on in utter denial.

i have tried to provide some limited examples that are not based on perceptions, but facts. that cheney lied IS A FACT. that Libby was convicted of perjury IS A FACT. That Gonzalez has made contradictyory sttements and may now lose his job IS A FACT. that iraq is a disaster, despite holding elections, IS A FACT. that Bush told brownie he was doing a heckuva a job while the nation watched the katrina debacle in horror IS A FACT. I could go on and on. as such, I am not the one twisting and spinning the truth. the truth speaks for itself.

p.s. that no weapons of mas... (Below threshold)
slingshot:

p.s. that no weapons of mass destructuion were found and there was apparently no post-invasion plan ARE FACTS. this is indisputable.

Brian crashes and burns.... (Below threshold)
Brian:

Brian crashes and burns.

LOL! Hi, there, Sock Puppet Jo! I see you decided to use your more common name today! How pathetic that you attempt to attack me by making some comment without anything to back it up, especially as it was posted immediately after I handily refuted everything the doubters on here threw at me. You weren't one of them, since that does take some intelligence. But still, it was nice to see you again! Say hi to the puppets!

If Jesus was here in hum... (Below threshold)
Brian:

If Jesus was here in human form and they MSM saw him walk on water, their headline would be: Jesus Can't Swim. ww

Jesus was a liberal.

Here we go again:<... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Here we go again:

1) your response means nothing, because THERE WERE NO WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION FOUND, and Bush started this war. (Blame Clinton response #1)

There was also widespread belief that he had them. Anti-war advocates were arguing that he'd use them.

2) apparently in your world all is going splendidly in Iraq. you should inquire as to whether there are policy making positions open in the White House.

Commenting on improvement does not mean things are hunky-dory.

3) planners still had no clue. if Iran's position is weakening now, it is weakening from a vastly stronger position that that form which it would have weakened pre-invasion.

Well, I suppose in some circles your opinion can masquerade as fact. Not so much here.

4) Sudan is not in Iraq. It is still true that al-Qaeda has set up shop in Iraq only after the invasion. (Blame Clinton response #2.)

No, it is not true. There were operational ties pre-9/11.

5) The fact that other people also did a bad job does not mean that Bush et al did a good job.

Once again, Bush cannot send in the Nat'l Guard if the governor does not request it. She did not.

6) Bush initially proposed Miers. it is irrelevant from where the pressure came to pull her nomination. It is not as if the democrats supported this nomination. I am addressing what it means, to me at least, as to the truth about Bush coming out (incompetent, delusional idiot).

A bad choice for an office is a sign of ineptitude? You REALLY want to go with that?

7) Cheney (7&9): went on meet the press and said that there was a connection between Iraq and 9-11. Months later he went on meet the press and denied making the claim that he previously made on meet the press.

The links to the transcripts:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/

MR. RUSSERT: The Washington Post asked the American people about Saddam Hussein, and this is what they said: 69 percent said he was involved in the September 11 attacks. Are you surprised by that?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: No. I think it's not surprising that people make that connection.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there a connection?

VICE PRES. CHENEY: We don't know.

Feel free to present a single transcript of him saying Saddam or Iraq was behind it. And since they're available on-line, links will, of course, be required.

8) umm, I don't think so. i guess if Gonzalez loses his job, you will blame this on a brain fart. I guess if the AG of the United States is forced out, it's really not a big deal to you. I happen to disagree. Gonzalez was bush's choice, and he is publicly turning out to be a crony. to people who are not hardcore Bush partisans like yourself, this actually is important.

A President exercising his powers is hardly a life-or-death issue here. He can dismiss them for any reason he sees fit.

9) generalities on lefty web sites? dude, you are seriously delusional. no wonder "your guys" are losing elections left and right. Cheney- see #7.

You mean the point you lied about? THAT one? Just checking.

Libby- convicted of perjury. Gonzalez- claims had nothing to do with USA firings, yet mounting piles of evidence clearly demonstrate otherwise; aides are now taking the fifth as opposed to testifying. Rove- where does one begin? if his mouth is open, than one can only assume lies are coming out. etc.

Libby no more perjured himself than EVERYBODY who testified against him did --- Russert's testimony differed, quite a bit, from his grand jury testimony.

And Rove? I noticed no ACTUAL examples. Shocking.

10) do I really have to list them? what difference does it make whether I call them by name? (examples: USA, Libby, Katrina, botched intelligence, mission accomlished, Miers, Abramoff [I realize this is not of Bush's doing, but it adds to the overall impression], there are others, I am sure you can think of a few more])

USAG? Presidential right to fire.

Libby? A non-crime with a really shaky perjury conviction based on the continuously changing testimony of journalists and a brutally hostile jury.

Miers? Again, a bad choice is a crime? You REALLY won't like where this will go if you are pursuing that line of thought.

Abramoff? Hmm, I noticed that Reid has still refused to return the money Abramoff steered his way. Weird, huh?

12) good. so talks work (errr, we could have been doing this all along). I am glad to see you now take the word of the North Koreans because of the fact that Republicans are talking to them. If they go back on their word, I am sure you will find a way to blame Clinton. Is it perhaps the case that there is no good option with NK, and so the best solution, if not a good one, is to maintain dialog with them in order to try and mange the problem as best possible? if you know of a good military solution please feel free to describe it. again, there may be foreign policy openings in the white house, and i am sure they will be all ears to hear your theory.

It's weird. Bush is criticized for being "too unilateral" --- except when it comes to N. Korea, where he's criticized for being too multilateral. Bizarre.

13) this is not about what "lefties" think. i am listing why people have turned against Bush, from all ends of the political spectrum, and it is a fact that many conservatives are very displeased with Bush about his position on this issue, including, I imagine, yourself.

Yes, Bush has alienated both sides. He's not been a great President. C'est la vie. He's STILL better than the alternatives presented.

I could also mention that Bush is more popular than the Democrat Congress.
-=Mike

Jesus was a liberal.... (Below threshold)
MikeSC:

Jesus was a liberal.

He must have supported the Iraq War, considering that is the quickest way to make liberals hate other liberals.
-=Mike




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy