Patterico's Pontifications

11/14/2005

Duck, Democrats! Tom Maguire Is on the Scene!

Filed under: Politics,War — Patterico @ 6:21 am

Tom Maguire has an excellent post that finds and exposes some embarrassing old quotes from Democrats about the war.

Comments (16)

16 Responses to “Duck, Democrats! Tom Maguire Is on the Scene!”

Flip-flop:

They were for the war, before they were against it.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/14/2005 @ 10:13 am
Yeah, that’s what they get for listening to “Bush intelligence,” which is now a contradiction in terms.

But here are some Bushisms to laugh at. There are only tens of thousands of people dead who knows how many maimed for life – so sure, go ahead – yuk it up!

“Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities that were used for the production of biological weapons.” — United Nations Address September 12, 2002
“Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons.” — Radio Address October 5, 2002
“We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons — the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have.” — Radio Address October 5, 2002
“The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons.” — Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
“We know that the regime has produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas, sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas.” — Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
“We’ve also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas. We’re concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVS for missions targeting the United States.” — Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
“The evidence indicates that Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Saddam Hussein has held numerous meetings with Iraqi nuclear scientists, a group he calls his “nuclear mujahideen” – his nuclear holy warriors. Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at sites that have been part of its nuclear program in the past. Iraq has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes and other equipment needed for gas centrifuges, which are used to enrich uranium for nuclear weapons.” — Cincinnati, Ohio Speech October 7, 2002
“Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent.” — State of the Union Address January 28, 2003
“Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.” — Address to the Nation March 17, 2003
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/14/2005 @ 11:12 am
Don’t forget this particularly reprehensible Bush Lie:

“Earlier today, I ordered America’s armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq’s nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

Oh wait, sorry that was Bill Clinton. Never mind.

Just Google Clinton Iraq 1998.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/14/2005 @ 11:52 am
Blaming Clinton won’t help you this time Dwilkers. If Clinton had invaded Iraq like Bush did and got us in this tragic mess, then you might have a point. Clinton just dropped bombs on Iraq when (in his estimation) they stepped over the line. I’m no partisan hack – Clinton’s no angel. So I won’t try to defend him in this circumstance.

But saying “Clinton was wrong too” completely misses the point. If we were led to war with false pretenses, then it doesn’t matter one iota what Clinton said or did.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/14/2005 @ 12:10 pm
I like to see Republicans on the attack against the “Bush lied” idiots. But it is interesting to see how the MSM, and particularly our regional paper here in Raleigh, the N&O, is choosing to cover the story.

First, they titled the piece “Advisor defends Bush.” The advisor in question is Steven Hadley, and he was not defending Bush. He was attacking the critics, like Jay Rockefeller in our earlier post, who have proven to be political opportunists. The headline should have read “Bush advisor attacks critics,” but that would have been out of line with the MSM theme that the Bush administration is on the defensive and in disarray.

The second interesting choice, though here the fault lies more with the AP than the N&O, is relegating the comments of John McCain to a late paragraph and not the headline. McCain is a much more popular and well-known figure than Steven Hadley, and he has also spoken harshly of the “Bush lied” critics and has called them disingenuous (which means they are liars, but also colleagues of his). Why wouldn’t the headline read “McCain attacks critics of Bush”? That lead would pack a nice punch and would put the critics of Bush on the defensive in the minds of readers.
Scott (7932a0) — 11/14/2005 @ 12:45 pm
As Dems shamefully dodge and duck to deny their own previously stated support for the war to liberate Iraq, voters can see clearly why the Democrat Party cannot be trusted with America’s national security.

These moral cowards can’t even face up to their own words, much less bring themselves to actually confront armed terrorists. It gives new meaning to the term: Yellow Dog Democrat.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/14/2005 @ 2:07 pm
I’m afraid you missed the point Tillman. It isn’t about Clinton, and certainly not about blaming him for anything.

The point is that the Dems will say anything. When Clinton said SH had WMD they were chirping right along – it was in their political interest. In the aftermath of 9/11 they were making more hawkish statements on Iraq than the administration – that was in their political interest. Now they need the anti-war lefty loons and Bush is low in the polls, so “Bush Lied!” – they think that’s in their political interest.

What Dems do not care about is what is right, or what is good for the counrty. They only care about what they think is good for Democrats and the heck with the truth or the best interests of the country. Their statements and contradictions in this case alone over time can lead to no other reasonable conclusion. The Democratic Party is not serious about the security of this country.

But frankly, anyone that cannot even acknowledge the His Excellency The Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV is a pathetic liar probably cannot or will not understand the point.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/14/2005 @ 2:51 pm
Black Jack and Dwilkers, you are both wrong. Half of the democrats in the Senate opposed the war with Iraq, so check the facts before you talk as if all of the democrats supported the war. They didn’t get to vote on whether we went to war in the first place – they only voted on whether to let Bush decide to go to war if he thought that it was necessary. So it is deceitful of you to imply otherwise.

But at least some of the democrats stood up to their constituents who were fooled into thinking that only unpatriotic and treasonous people would oppose the war. How many republicans did that? The real shame is using patriotism to justify a needless war. That should be a crime in itself.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/14/2005 @ 3:32 pm
“so check the facts before you talk as if all of the democrats supported the war”

I didn’t say all the Democrats supported the war, nor did I imply it, nor was it in my mind, nor is it something I think.

“So it is deceitful of you to imply otherwise.”

I didn’t imply any such thing. It is you who are being deceitful in laying that off on me. It isn’t stated, implied, or hinted in my post. It is totally in your mind.

I think the post was perfectly clear. Its about what they said then verses what they’re saying now and the only reasonable conclusion one can draw from the conflict between the two positions.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/14/2005 @ 3:50 pm
So what is this supposed to mean then, Dwilkers?

The point is that the Dems will say anything. When Clinton said SH had WMD they were chirping right along…

(Emphasis added.)
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/14/2005 @ 3:55 pm
Well gosh Tillman.

When. Clinton. Said. Saddam. Had. WMD. The. Dems. Agreed. Enthusiastically.

Clear enough?

Anything there about who voted for what?

Well?

……………..?

Do you understand that’s what the blog post was about? Just One Minute’s post of analyzing what they said vs what they say now?

Do you need me to explain what “The point is that the Dems will say anything” means?

Are you intentionally being dense?
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/14/2005 @ 5:38 pm
Dwilkers, you were talking about Clinton’s presidency too when you said this?

In the aftermath of 9/11 they were making more hawkish statements on Iraq than the administration…

Um, trouble is, I think 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch.

But the truth is, half of the dems in the Senate didn’t vote to give that decision to Bush. All of this is beside the point that the Bush administration misrepresented the WMD intelligence anyway.

Yeah, us democrats are real mean since we’re complaining when our soldiers are getting killed and killing people in a war that never should have happened. How terrible we democrats are! How dare us!
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/14/2005 @ 6:17 pm
You ARE being intentionally dense Tillman.

Either that or you have some really serious problems with reading comprehension, or for some reason its very important for you to diliberately misconstrue what’s in that post.

If neither of thoe is true Tillman, you’ve been at the keyboard way too long and need to take a break, and perhaps consider than sometimes when people type a reply it means exactly what it says, not what you want it to say.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/15/2005 @ 4:30 am
Tillman, You said, “Black Jack and Dwilkers, you are both wrong. Half of the democrats in the Senate opposed the war with Iraq…”

Dwilkers speaks for himself, and my comments were about Dems ducking their own statements of support for the war. Did you really think I was talking about something else, or were you only lashing out because you can’t bring yourself to face up to the unpleasant reality of Dems flip-flopping on the war?

Many, you say half, of the Dems voted to send our troops into harm’s way and now the going gets tough, those same Dems want to cut and run, leave out troops to fend for themselves like Clinton did at Mogadishu. Don’t think anyone’s going to forget that treachery anytime soon, or that Dems couldn’t get to the TV cameras fast enough to denounce Saddam and his WMD’s. Nor will this current flip-flop fade from the national memory.

The message is loud and clear: Democrats are self-interested opportunists and can’t be trusted, not with national security, not with domestic policy, and not with the keys to the piggy bank. And the proof is live and on TV right now.
Black Jack (ee9fe2) — 11/15/2005 @ 11:44 am
Talk to your Democratic bretheren Tillman. They’re speaking for you.
Dwilkers (a1687a) — 11/15/2005 @ 4:28 pm
RE: # 15, Like I said Dwilkers; that’s what they get for listening to Dubya. More democrats came out against the war than republicans.

Edwards is man enough to admit that he made a mistake. I hope that the rest of the officials in Washington have the courage to follow suite soon.

For the record, I’m not claiming that Dubya maliciously led us into this quagmire. But in retrospect, it sure was a major blunder to use the available intelligence with a slanted view. We had more dangerous enemies to worry about like Iran and North Korea.

I’ve been against the war with Iraq before it started. So I have been in the minority for a while. You and Black Jack are on the wrong side of this argument, and finally, the majority of the American people – some 60% – see that it was a mistake.
Tillman (1cf529) — 11/16/2005 @ 4:39 am

11/14/2005

Duck, Democrats! Tom Maguire Is on the Scene!

16 Responses to “Duck, Democrats! Tom Maguire Is on the Scene!”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out