Norm Coleman was asked last week if, knowning what he knows now, he thought his support for the Iraq War in 2002 was wrong.
Norm said “No.”
Coleman’s refusal to acknowledge that the war in Iraq was a mistake of epic proportions will be a major issue this fall. The DSCC just put out this web ad hitting Coleman for his continued support of the war. This is a must-see.
Loading ...
Not a bad web ad, but I think they could’ve been more aggressive. They also definitely should’ve had a slid between Norm saying No and the end of the ad suggesting Norm is wrong for MN. I don’t agree with it, but I think it could’ve had a stronger end.
I hope you get the embed code fixed, Zack
If it’s such a great ad, let’s ask the same question to the following Democrats who voted for the Iraq war in 2002 and are up for re-election this year:
Mark Pryor (D-AR)
Joe Biden (D-DE)
Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Mary Landrieu (D-LA)
John Kerry (D-MA)
Max Baucus (D-MT)
Tim Johnson (D-SD)
John D. Rockefeller IV (D-WV)
Why is it Republicans are unable to take responsibility for their screwups?
When any of those Democrats come to town, we can ask them. I would like to hear what they have to say on that question.
In the meantime, since Norm Coleman is the Senator from Minnesota, don’t you think he owes Minnesota voters an explanation? None of the Democrats on your list are running in Minnesota, so while we may be curious as to their reasoning, they don’t owe voters in Minnesota any explanation.
This one’s an easy response for most Democrats who voted for it. Hilary authored and used the response quite frequently; something along the lines of, “If we knew then that the President was going to mislead us, recklessly conduct a war and abuse his power so blindly, then, no, we would *not* have voted to give the President the authority to conduct the war.”
This is what is wrong with people who are blinded by partisanship. You just want Norm to say “I really screwed up! I had a crappy policy!” (please don’t chop but those quotes and use them out of context like is always done with McCain’s 100 year war comment, ok?)
Few Republicans would say they would do everything exactly the same. In fact, most Republicans would say that they were more with McCain, who supported dealing with the Iraqi regime but felt from the beginning that it was being executed poorly.
But no, instead of asking Norm what he would do differently, or to reflect on how this could have been implemented better, you want the all or none answer. “Norm, tell us. Should you have voted correctly with the Democrats, or are you an evil person? Either or. Which is it?” There are more shades of gray than that.
Great analysis Dan
There aren’t that many shades of gray. Its pretty ridiculous to say what Coleman is saying now - his position implies that facts simply do not matter. If Coleman is the moderate and the independent that he now claims to be, of course he should now believe that the right thing to do was to vote against the war. Al Franken, who supported the war initially, has admitted he was wrong. If Coleman can’t or won’t do the same, he is just proving again that he is a mindless tool of the Bush administration.
DanTheMan - right on
Dan - supporting the war does not automatically imply someone is a “mindless tool of the Bush administration.” Sen. Lieberman is not a “mindless tool of the Bush administration,” nor is Sen. Nelson
First off, this is a blog Danthe(not so)man. People are going to quote you like you quote them (“Norm, tell us. Should you have voted correctly with the Democrats, or are you an evil person? Either or. Which is it?”, is that even an accurate quote from anyone on this page?). So stop trying to play the victim. It’s just sad.
Second, it’s a very simple difference between Norm and Al. One admits that the war was a mistake, the other doesn’t. All that you need to do to decide who is right is ask yourself the same question. If you want to find out the answer to a different question, write Coleman a letter.
Third, Randy is right on. It doesn’t matter in this Senate race what other democrats or republicans have done or decided about the war. This is about accountability to Minnesotans.
Sean2, I agree 100%
Everybody knows there are no Republicans who are mindless tools of the Bush administration.
Just because everyone agrees 100% does not make them mindless.
Keep taking down moonbats so very well.
Great Job!
You guys are missing the point. This is not about whether someone supported going to war in 2003, or even whether they think the war should continue in 2008. The question here is: if you knew then what you know now, would you still favor going to war? That is, knowing that the justifications for the war were all false, would you have gone to war anyway? That is the question here.
And the answer to that question, for any rational person, should be “no.” If you answer “yes” like Coleman did, then you are a mindless tool of the Bush administration. To Coleman, loyalty to Bush and his misguided policy is more important than looking at the actual facts.
Calling Norm Coleman a “a mindless tool of the Bush administration” is an insult to mindless tools everywhere. I’ve used many a mindless tool and let me tell you every one of them was smarter and more loyal than Norm Coleman. Norm Coleman has never jumped out of George Bush’s nether regions to do anything other than to slavishly do what his wife told him to do.
Have you noticed that Norm’s ads never mention he is a Republican and use Democratic Blue as the primary color? Does he really think Minnesotans are mindless tools like he is?
Dan - “knowing that the justifications for the war were all false” - one of the allegations was that Saddam had the wherewithal for wmds so he could share secrets to terror groups with which he collaborated. This ‘allegation’ holds the test of more than 5 years of trying to undermine it.
amuseinc - If you knew anything about campaigns, candidates choose a color and stick with it. Norm has always been blue. It’s from when he was a mayor to my knowledge. It has nothing to do with party.
Sean2, “Joe Lieberman is not a mindless tool of the Bush Administration”? Are you serious? I mean come on, you’ve got to be kidding right? Just who has been the biggest cheerleader for the Iraq war, stands by McCain’s side and corrects his faux pas. Joltin’ Joe Lieberman that’s who! This modern-day Yankee Clipper has been batting cleanup for the pro-war hawks in the Senate for 5 years. Total war tool for Bush and McCain.
Sean2 you mindless tool… you mean when he was a DEMOCRAT and used Democratic blue! God you conservatives are easy to dupe… the slimy bastard is turning into a Liberal before your eyes and you are still making excuses. Donate some money to him because no matter who wins, liberals take the seat.
And I do know something about campaigns… that Normy’s is following the path of Kennedy’s from last cycle. No substance and stupid warm and fuzzy BS that nobody believes.
The justification for the war - made by Colin Powell - was that Saddam had WMDs. That claim was false.
Since he used to have WMDs and got rid of them, I guess Saddam had the “wherewithal” to get them again. And I guess that had he acted upon that “wherewithal,” he could have given them to terror groups. You could put together all kinds of hypothetical scenarious about if Saddam had done this or if Saddam had done that. But that isn’t (and wasn’t then) a justification for the war. People like you have been lying about that for five years now, but your claims fail the test in about five seconds for anyone who isn’t a complete asshat.
“Based on what you know now, was your support for the war wrong?”
What kind of question is that? What we know now is that there were no WMD. So was his support wrong? No, because he thought there were WMDs. Now he knows there weren’t. But at the time of the vote, he and may others thought there were.
I just hate this ‘gotcha’ type of questioning. The fact is that this reporting is mixing present and past tense in a way that makes any answer Norm would give look bad on some level.
A better question would have been “Had the WMD not been a factor in 2003, would you have still supported the Iraq invasion?” While we shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that Saddam had one big, happy, non-terrorism family as a nation, the answer to a more clearer hypothetical would have been more substantive.
Here is how I would have answered it:
“Based on what I know now? Well, ma’am, what I know now is that our intelligence was erroneous. We learned that throughout 2004 and 2005. That kind of lapse in intelligence is unacceptable and we need to make sure it is also very rare — American intelligence has to be the best in the world for us to be the beacon of peace. But the fact that today, in 2008, I know it was erroneous wouldn’t have and couldn’t have changed the vote I cast in 2003. That vote was made on what I knew then, not what I know now. And what I knew then was that we were 15 months removed from the most devastating terrorist attack on US soil, and our intelligence had led us to believe Iraq was a serious threat.
In a world of instability where terrorism is a real part of life, the Senator will need to make more tough decisions during the next six years. And my approach will continue to be to analyze and evaluate the intelligence I receive, and make the most responsible decision I can based upon it.”
or — “If you’re asking me if, had our Intelligence convinced me that Iraq had no WMDs, would I have voted for a resolution supporting a war based on the presence of WMDs? No, of course I would not have.”
Much more concise and clear, but still drives home that it is impossible to mix past and present tenses on a hindsight question like this.
Dantheman, I agree 100%,
You talk like a way, way, way better candidate for Senate than Norm Coleman.
Great Job!
Rick - Lieberman is liberal to the core on issues other than the war. I’ve heard him speak, I’ve seen him at events. I like the guy, but he’s no tool for Bush. Neither is the Benator.
amuseinc - “used Democratic blue” - he used blue. At the time he first chose blue, blue was not (to my knowledge) associated with the Democratic Party. Rarely do politicians choose color solely based on political party. But you would know that.
Dan - “justification for the war …” - there were many more than one justification for the war. Remember how Democrats complained about too many reasons?
Dan - “And I guess …” - In a post 9/11 world, it would’ve been irresponsible to wait for terror groups to have wmd and kill Americans. We had to be proactive to prevent terror on our soil. 7 years running, no terror attacks.
Sean2 I agree 100%,
The seven safe years of the motherland, oops I mean homeland since 9/11 prove Republican policies have kept us safe.
The previous “safe” years of the homeland up until 9/11 prove nothing. We were never really safe, because of that god-damned piece of paper. The so-called “constitution” was treated like the law of the land, and was written with a pre-9/11 mentality. I’m sure the moonbats got what they wanted when they wrote that thing.
Great Job!
Sean2, since around 2000, when I think Normy was DEMOCRAT, the major media has used the Blue equals Democrat deal. And since Normy seems to want to pretend to not be a Republican these days… he keeps the blue. Why not just admit that Norm Coleman is an opportunist and not a dyed in the wool conservative Republican. It does your soul good to admit the truth.
Of course you know that this color association has a long history…”An early marriage of red and blue with the two major parties is noted in the Texas State Historical Association’s Handbook of Texas History
Online, which describes a color-coding system developed in the 1870’s to help illiterate and Spanish-speaking voters navigate English-language ballots in South Texas. Local Democratic leaders
called their party the Blues; Republicans chose to be the Reds.”
Just curious folks why do you keep trying to lie to yourself?
We were told that we shouldn’t have invaded and give sancations a
chance. Norm proved along with the documents that we captured
that Saddam Hussein was trying to break the sancation programs.
And lets not forget those hundreds of thousands or is that
millions of people who weren’t killed or hurt for disagreeing
wiht Saddam Hussein. You forget that living in the United States
when you can sit down at a computer and express disagreements with
your leaders.
And lets not forget Franken at one time was in favor of the invation
of Iraq. So who are you folks voting for then if both candidates
support the invasion? The Independent party candidate?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
MtkaDem,
If Hillary was misled about Saddam and WMDs, she shouldn’t blame the Bush administration. She should blame her husband’s administration:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
- http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
- http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
- http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
- http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
- http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
- http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+“Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+the+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+technology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+region+and+he+has+made+a+moc
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
- http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+“Hussein+has+…+chosen+to+spend+his+money+on+building+weapons+of+mass+destruction+and+palaces+for+his+cronies.”&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
MtkaDem,
If Hillary feels misled about Saddam and WMDs, she shouldn’t blame the Bush administration. She should blame her husband’s administration:
“One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line.”
- President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 | Source
- http://www.cnn.com/US/9802/04/us.un.iraq/
“If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”
- President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 | Source
- http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/02/18/iraq.political.analysis/
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998 | Source
- http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/01/iraq/
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998 | Source
- http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm
“[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs.”
Letter to President Clinton.
- (D) Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, others, Oct. 9, 1998 | Source
- http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/07/17/wh.critics/
“Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 | Source
- http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+“Saddam+Hussein+has+been+engaged+in+the+development+of+weapons+of+mass+destruction+technology+which+is+a+threat+to+countries+in+the+region+and+he+has+made+a+moc
“Hussein has … chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”
- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 | Source
- http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:u62ZeSGUfj0J:washingtontimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm+“Hussein+has+…+chosen+to+spend+his+money+on+building+weapons+of+mass+destruction+and+palaces+for+his+cronies.”&hl=en&ie=UTF-8