In politics, if you are going to say something stupid, you better make sure its not caught on tape. You can ask George Allen about that.
Just days ago, Norm Coleman was asked if, knowing what he knows today, he thought he support of the Iraq War was a mistake.
Norm said no.
Norm’s refusal to admit that the Iraq War was a mistake of epic proportions will be a major issue in this race.
Loading ...
Oh I like that one.
Is this another edition of “Simple Answers To Stupid Questions”?
This is not an example of a racial slur like that idiot from Virginia’s, rather it is a fundamental example of a bad politician who is incapable of admitting a mistake. It is an example of the real “loyalty” of someone who once bought, stays bought. Plus the boy seemingly just can’t think on his feet.
I think it is profoundly unfair to point out what a “tool” Norm Coleman is by the Al Franken campaign. Even the Republicans know that, that is exactly why Karl Rove told him to run for Senate. The fact that he isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, should be kept under wraps to save Minnesota from Bacheman-like embarrassment.
How did the other 99 senators reply?
Kind of like Al’s embaressing moments, without the rape and the bestiality.
This is not a macaca moment. This is just a fundamental difference in phlosophy of Coleman and the Left.
Swiftee, I agree 100%,
As you say, Swiftee, you’re spreading discontent on the internet and sending “Leftists” to the third ring of hell.
I think you’re doing one heck of a job.
Great Job!
And sean2 it is also WHY HE DOESN’T REPRESENT MINNESOTA WELL! Checkout how Minnesotans feel about the Iraq War you Republicans lied us into… we want out. So Coleman fails the test of representing Minnesotans on a critical issue… another reason to remove him is his failure to follow Minnesota wishes in the Senate.
This is not a war Republicans lied us into. This is an example of somewhat faulty intelligence that had to be taken seriously after a national catastrophe. I only became a Republican because my dad was almost killed in the first WTC bombing in 1993. I know people who physically shook for weeks being so close to NYC because they didn’t know if their dad or uncle or other relative survived on 9/11.
Evry bipartisan report has found the same thing. In 2004, a bipartisan investigation “did not find any evidence that administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments.” In 2005, a similar investigation found “no indication that the intelligence community distorted the evidence regarding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” The distortion that Bush misled the US into war is simply not true.
And regardless of any of this, I did not comment on Norm’s position in this post, rather just made a point that this is a fundamental political difference, not a macaca moment like George Allen suffered.
If the Iraq war was such a collosal mistake, why did Congress just vote to keep funding the war to the tune of $162 billion and well into the next president’s first year in office? If you really feel the war was such a bad idea, at some point Democrats who control both the House and the Senate have an obligation to end the war. The fact that they refuse speaks volumes about them.
This is not a war Republicans lied us into. This is an example of somewhat faulty intelligence that had to be taken seriously after a national catastrophe.
And this talking point is an example of an administration’s inability to take responsibility for the most outrageous and illegal foreign policy decision in this nation’s history.
I only became a Republican because my dad was almost killed in the first WTC bombing in 1993
Iraq had nothing to do with that. Why did this administration order out Hans Blix and the UN weapon inspectors out of Iraq before the job was done? Because it was becoming obvious they weren’t going to find anything and that would’ve buggered the whole rational for launching the war. Bush lied, millions died.
Chris, sometimes you post stuff that leads people to think you’re either stupid or a bootlicker; other times you post stuff that proves it. Your post this time is of the latter.
Reid has 49 Democrats, and Lieberman and Sanders caucusing with them. But, it takes 60 votes for cloture. These facts gives the minority party a LOT of power. Again, you either knew that and are being a good little bootlicker, or you need to go here, to brush up on Constitutional issues (it’s written at a level even you can understand): http://www.usconstitution.net/constkidsK.html
TPT - to fund the war, you need 60 votes. Thus, only 40 votes are needed to stop funding. The Demorats have had more than 40 members throughout the war. Chris was right in the point he was making.
Richard -
“this talking point …” - I gave you the quotes of the bipartisan intelligence reports. All you gave me was rhetoric. Hmm
“Iraq had nothing to do with that.” - Iraq posed a threat to the US both in numerous ways. I’m not going to again enumerate them all, but the logic was sound, the intelligence was not. Perhaps intelligence should not have been cut in funding … ahem, Bill.
Iraq called for the deaths of US citizens, with Saddam using the 1 yr anniversary of 9/11 to call for attacks on America. Saddam had extensive ties with terror groups and manufactured his own terror groups (2000 per year starting in 1999). He had the wherewithal to build chemial weapons (80s and 90s) and nuclear weapons (81), secrets he could share with people who dedicated their lives to killing Americans and themselves.
I find this string extremely entertaining.
From the June 5th release:
The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq.
and
The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.
It goes on
“In making the case for war, the Administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed.”
Again
Sadly, the Bush Administration led the nation into war under false pretenses.
Here’s where the rubber hits the road
The Committee’s report cites several conclusions in which the Administration’s public statements were NOT supported by the intelligence. They include:
Ø Statements and implications by the President and Secretary of State suggesting that Iraq and al-Qa’ida had a partnership, or that Iraq had provided al-Qa’ida with weapons training, were not substantiated by the intelligence.
Ø Statements by the President and the Vice President indicating that Saddam Hussein was prepared to give weapons of mass destruction to terrorist groups for attacks against the United States were contradicted by available intelligence information.
Ø Statements by President Bush and Vice President Cheney regarding the postwar situation in Iraq, in terms of the political, security, and economic, did not reflect the concerns and uncertainties expressed in the intelligence products.
Ø Statements by the President and Vice President prior to the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate regarding Iraq’s chemical weapons production capability and activities did not reflect the intelligence community’s uncertainties as to whether such production was ongoing.
Ø The Secretary of Defense’s statement that the Iraqi government operated underground WMD facilities that were not vulnerable to conventional airstrikes because they were underground and deeply buried was not substantiated by available intelligence information.
Ø The Intelligence Community did not confirm that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi intelligence officer in Prague in 2001 as the Vice President repeatedly claimed.
Now I suppose you can cherry pick phrases and far reaching generalities within the report that, if interrupted from a specific bias, might lead to the conclusion that by a very narrow definition of the term “lie”, this administration did not “lie” to the Congress (an impeachable offense) or to the American people but I think that will not be the conclusion of history. History will deem this President and this administration as the most corrupt and the most irresponsible in US history.
“June 5th release” … this was an investigation done by a committee that Republicans were not allowed to sit on. It was a patisan stint and holds no validity. The bipartisan committees hat researched the same thing found absolutey no evidence of the Bush administration falsifying, stretching, manipulating, etc evidence to mislead us into Iraq, as I quoted.
Press Release of Intelligence Committee
Senate Intelligence Committee Unveils Final Phase II Reports on Prewar Iraq Intelligence — Two Bipartisan Reports Detail Administration Misstatements on Prewar Iraq Intelligence, and Inappropriate Intelligence Activities by Pentagon Policy Office — Really???
Bipartisan???
Sean, try reading the report and stop regurgitating the right wing spin.
Washington, DC — The Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, and a bipartisan majority of the Committee (10-5), today unveiled the final two sections of its Phase II report on prewar intelligence. The first report details Administration prewar statements that, on numerous occasions, misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq. The second report details inappropriate, sensitive intelligence activities conducted by the DoD’s Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, without the knowledge of the Intelligence Community or the State Department.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf
Bush and this administration lied and millions died.
Of course they want you to think it was bipartisan and will pass it off as such. GO through the list of the 15 Senators, and you get in breakdown:
Against the War: Rockefeller, Feinstein, Hyden, Bayh, Mikulski, Feingold, Nelson, Whitehouse, Warner, Hagel, Snowe
For the War: Bond, Chambliss, Hatch, Burr
That is an 11-4 overwhlemng supermajority of members on that panel who have an invested interest in opposing the war. There is 0 bipartisanship in that report. None.
Sean2, Chris specifically took a shot at Democratic Party leadership. I correctly pointed out there are only 49 of 100 elected Democrats; I also correctly pointed out Cloture takes 60 votes which gives minority party a lot of power.
Chris may have had a point if he were criticizing individual democrats; he wasn’t - he was taking a shot at leadership.
Link here for a story, last year, about cloture, and how many cloture votes they projected for the 110th Congress:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/18218.html
It doesn’t look like there will be as many as projected, as this is where the Senate is at, now: http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/110.htm
So let me get this straight. Because four Senators are trying to cover their tails and spin the facts to say that Bush and company, in the rush to war, were not telling deliberate lies, but were just grossly mistaken and grossly negligent, issue a minority analysis saying the intelligence “generally” supported the actions taken. Wow, that is some serious cognitive dissonance. I prefer to apply Occams Razor to this, “All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” Bush and company wanted to invade Iraq so they manipulated public opinion by misrepresenting the threat. In other words, they lied.
Richard, what we would need is a nonpartisan panel. Sadly, a Senate investigtion is not nonpartisan, and so we need a bipartisan panel if we are to achieve anything at all. When the panel is stacked 11-4 against the war, of course the panel is going to say their was deception in the way we went to war. If it were 11-4 the other way, the panel would say ‘no deception.’ As such, a panel stacked like this holds no credability whatsoever — it’s purely a political stunt. What is so hard to see about that?
TPT - You weren’t wrong per se. The minority does have a lot of power. The only point to be made is that when invoking cloture on funding the war, it requires 60 senators in the affirmative. That means, the Democrats have the power, even if it is purely a party line vote, to stop funding the war. Chris’s point was simply that the Democratic Party could’ve stopped funding for this war, didn’t, and deserves equal criticism in prolonging this war. That’s all Chris was trying to say, as I see it.
http://intelligence.senate.gov/080605/phase2a.pdf
Again, I’ll ask you to read the report. These are facts. Statements were made by Bush and others to whip up public opinion. These specific statements were not supported by intelligence information. These statements were knowingly false and made for the specific purpose of manipulating public opinion. Remember Bush and Condi talking about the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud. The intelligence community had issued several reports saying Saddam had no capability to build a nuclear device. Nor was he going to have that capability in the foreseeable future. In the weeks and days just prior to the invasion, over 70% of the American population believed Saddam was either responsible or involved with the 9/11 attacks. The intelligence community had issued reports saying there was no operational contact or involvement with Al-Qaida. Falsehood after falsehood came out of this administration, including the completely discredited testimony of Colin Powell in front of the UN. This was the most embarrassing moment in US foreign policy. This effectively ruined Colin Powell’s career in public service. Paul Wellstone knew this was a load of bollocks and voted his conscience. Many though, could not believe a President would lie to the public about a matter so serious and took the administration at it’s word. It’s tough to admit you’ve been fooled, I understand that but, the facts are the facts. Bush misrepresented the threat that Iraq posed to the US and launched an invasion on false pretenses. If there is any justice in this world, before the end of this decade, we’ll see Bush et al, in handcuffs, being led to a small jail cell to spend the remainder of his days.
Hey Two Putz,
Spending bills are under reconciliation rules and aren’t subject to filibuster and cloture. Moreover, the bill first passed the House where there are no cloture rules and where Democrats have a significant majority. And they even added the provisions to exempt the phone companies from liability for the post-9/11 warrantless wiretaps. Finally, this was an appropriations bill and if Congress wanted to end the war, they could just not appropriate money for the war and force the president to remove the troops. I thought you were smarter than this, Tommy. I’m disappointed.
Richard,
You have to stop drinking the Kool Aid. If Bush lied about Iraq, then so did Clinton (Bill and Hillary), Al Gore, Madeline Albright, Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry and every other Democrat that said Saddam had WMDs throughout the 1990s. You’d also have to say that Israel, Great Britian, France and other nations’ intelligence agencies also lied. But then again, you don’t care about facts — only political points. If you cared about facts you wouldn’t blindly accuse our troops of killing millions of Iraqis.
You honestly believe that an intelligence investigation mader of 11 opponents of the war and 4 proponents is going to be factual and not a political stunt? That’s naivete of the grandest scale.
Yes, I’ve read the ntelligence reports we’ve discussed. I’ve also read the Butler report. Have you? Google for a copy — maybe you should read that before we go on.
Chris, “you don’t care about facts — only political points. If you cared about facts you wouldn’t blindly accuse our troops of killing millions of Iraqis” .. QFT
Chris, you really have to spend more time concentrating on getting past the eighth grade. Maybe this time you’ll make it. Clinton’s, et al, were pursuing regime change in Iraq and the intelligence they were getting was loaded with caveats (that’s a fancy word for maybes). There was some feeling that Saddam might be looking to rebuild his military but no concrete evidence. In fact, this came from Saddam’s scientists who were telling Saddam himself, the weapons programs were coming along splendidly but in fact, were nonexistent. Imagine the result if Hans Blix had been allowed to finish his inspection and issue the report that there were no WMD in Iraq. In fact, not only were there no WMD in Iraq but any capability to produce WMD had long since been dismantled or destroyed. Geez, you think maybe that might’ve had some destabilizing effect. You think maybe that might’ve helped along the whole regime change thing. Alas we’ll never know because Bush and company pulled the trigger, illegally. Look into Rumsfeld’s OSP. Very interesting. Apparently, all the intelligence reports that were to go to Congress were “filtered” through the OSP where all the caveats (maybes) were removed. Cherry picking the intelligence to build the case for war. Lieing to Congress (a crime) and lieing to the American people. Trying to blame it on Clinton and others just shows how the GOP is incapable of taking personal responsibility for their actions. That’s something you’ll learn to do when you’re a grownup. Maybe Coleman will learn to do it someday as well.
“Trying to blame it on Clinton” .. who’s blaming Clinton? Chris simply, again, is saying that there is criticism to be devoted to both sides and you liberals only attack the Republicans when many Democrats are ‘guilty’ of the same thing.
Who’s the commander and chief?
Commander in chief, Richard. And you attack people like Chris for his “eighth grade” intelligence. Ha. In the late 1990s, that man was Bill Clinton, when the comments were first made about WMD. Today, that man is George Bush. For this debate, I don’t see the relevance.
Then George Bush is the one who launched this war. Prior to that launch, he manipulated public opinion by knowingly overstating Iraq’s threat to the US. Coleman still goes along with this action, knowing that it was illegal and a grossly irresponsible decision. Millions died because George Bush illegally attacked a country that posed no threat to the US. Facts is facts, hard as they are to admit. The sooner we, as a nation, can admit that we were duped into believing our child king, the sooner we can begin repairing the damage our idiot IN chief wrought.
Facts? Must’ve missed them. All you’ve posted are the reports of a left-wing anti-war intelligence investigation.
Illegal? Just because you disagree with the war doesn’t make it illegal.
Sean2, I agree 100%,
Everyone knows that every single thing any “leftist” says is a lie.
Everyone knows everything that the Republican Party and their supporters say is 100% honest.
It is as black and white as that.
If you moonbats don’t like it, why don’t you socialist communist facists leftists just get over it. There I said it for you, Sean2. They must hate America and want us to surrender to terrorists.
Your hatred of the left is a beautiful thing Sean2. Please don’t try to hide it so much.
Keep up the good work.
Great Job!
I would be more then willing to test my proposal at the Hague. Of course George and Dick and Donald and Paul and Richard all might not share this view. Personally, I feel our standing in the world community would be greatly enhanced if we presented the architects of this war to the World court to stand trial for war crimes, and crimes against humanity.
Sean2,
I think you should take your mythological theory out in the public. Go up to everyone you see today and tell them your views and see if they agree with you. Not too many people are that insulated and ignorant these days. The lies are blatant, and we are living thier effects daily. Most people are willing to see the truth. It’s right in front of you. If you are right in your beliefs, wouldn’t you like to see it proven in front of an International War Crimes Tribunal? If it does happen and they are proven innocent, I will share your view. Somehow I think this would be your administration’s worst fear…. The laws the law, a crime is a crime, a lie is a lie, and the truth can be proven. I would love to see your ideas hold water in front of a judge. If they are truly innocent in their obvious actions, lets test it. That way, the truth would be out, and we all would win. If the Republicans have nothing to hide, they should be willing to prove their innocence. Somehow I doubt that they are interested in such a proposal.
The only thing to come of this debate has been:
-two bipartisan intelligence investigations said Bush did not deceive the international community and the us on inelligence
-the butler report says faulty intelligence is the source of alleged deceptions, but does not accuse people like Bush of cherrypicking the intel
-one overwhelmingly partisan committee published a highly partisan report attempting to give credence t their opposition to the iraq war by accusing bush of misleading the country into war
Zach - next time I go to a public place, I will ask people to withhold their judgement on the war and tell me whether they believe they were falsely led into war. Then I will read comments made in 1998 by the likes of John Kerry, Madeleine Albright, William Cohen, Sandy Berger, and Bill Clinton and see if they know who made the comments and when. I’ll get back to you.
As for your suggestion, I see no reason for Bush et al to be tried. People like you, despite what you say, will never like him. Also, “prove their innocence” … I oppose any court requiring proof of innocence. I much prefer courts in which a defendent instead disproves his guilt. I wouldn’t oppose that, but I would not support it unless there were an indication it could be productive were he to be found not guilty. And I don’t see that indication.
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_stalling_prewar_intelligence_1202.html
Paragraph 58 of the Butler reports warns specifically about the problem of becoming so fixated on the objective that the only intelligence that’s given any credence is the intelligence that supports that objective. Sound familiar?
Name the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee for the last two intelligence investigations. This June 5th report was the completion of the second phase and stands on it’s own merit. Try reading the report Sean2. Just try it, you might like becoming informed.
Sean2, I agree 100%,
They are guilty until proven innocent.
That is patriotic.
Great Job!
two bipartisan intelligence investigations said Bush did not deceive the international community and the us on inelligence
http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Senate_Intelligence_Committee_stalling_prewar_intelligence_1202.html
This last report was the completion of Phase 2. This report stands on it’s own merit. Name the chairman of the Senate committee for Phase 1.
The Butler reports paragraph 58 warns about the fixation on objective. Once this happens then the only intelligence thats given any credence is that intelligence that supports the objective. Sound familiar?
“They are guilty until proven innocent.”
TFRWG - No, I said innocent until proven guilty. The court rules based on guilt. The job of the defnse is to disprove guilt. Not a court based on innocence where you are not innocent until proven guilty. If you are going to mock me, at least get it right.
Gotta love hindsight, especially the all-or-none kind. So the question is, if we knew everything then that we know now, would you still invade Iraq. If I’m Norm, the question isn’t so simple: You mean if we had the intelligence that we’ve gained on the ground in Iraq, would I still invade? But if I chose no, would we have ever gotten to the bottom of what was happening in Iraq? Or do you mean would I invade Iraq in the same way, or choose a wiser and different strategy to do it as John McCain was clamoring for as early as 2003? Or would I have chosen to let Saddam rule, even though the method in which he ruled (a dictatorship who mass murders its detractors) is clearly against what we stand for? Or would I have still invaded but attempted to get more buy-in from other nations?
Here is what I know: We haven’t been attacked by terrorists since 9/11. Now, I don’t know if it has anything to do with Iraq. I don’t know if it has anything to do with our work in Afghanistan. I don’t know if it is just luck. I don’t know if it is better CIA intelligence. And I don’t know if it is just because each attack takes a decade to plan. But when we’re going on seven years of no attacks, I wouldn’t second guess everything in too much of a kneejerk fashion.
Long answer. But know question is an simple as “would you do it again”.
Another way to ask would be, “Would you vote like Wellstone?” You know, the Senator that Coleman is a 99% improvement on.
99% improvement is stretching it, I agree. I’d say maybe 50% improvement.
I agree the public service Wellstone provided for Minnesotans, but lets not forget that he never actually won a majority in any of his elections (something you can say for TPaw as well, but people on these boards tend to be much quicker to point that out). He was a very good public servant but many would argue Norm’s voting record is an improvement.
DTM, how many people have died in Iraq? How many innocent men, women, and children have been killed or horribly injured? Because of a decision that George Bush made and knowing all those deaths and injuries and pain and suffering, Norm would do it again. Knowing what we know now, Norm couldn’t come up with a better course? This moron is a Senator? This is the dillweed we got foisted upon us by national Republican party? It’s not a crime to be clueless but for Pete’s sake, this is beyond the pale.
Sean2, I agree 100%,
I understand exactly what the Republican party line is, and I’m glad you agree.
They are guilty until proven innocent.
These moonbats believe these terrorists are innocent before being proven guilty.
They think terrorists shouldn’t be tortured when the terrorists are guilty until proven innocent. These moonbats are the same ones who hate America and want to surrender to terrorists.
It is a black and white issue. Either you are with us, or against us, and we know these Democrats are against us.
Great Job!
Richard: “Norm would do it again. Knowing what we know now, Norm couldn’t come up with a better course?”
The reporter didn’t ask about the course. The reporter asked about the overall support, and if the support of dealing with Iraq would change. This question can be answered with the negative, while not simply meaning that you would replay things exactly as they have occurred.
John McCain is a great example. He feels the decision to deal with Iraq was right in terms of the current era global balance of power, but FROM THE BEGINNING was insisting that the methodology was all wrong. He is a maverick. He was an opponent of the Bush methods for invading Iraq. Norm may very well be there as well.
Most of us agree that Iraq was executed poorly. But should we have ignored it completely? I guess I’d want to see what else would be different had we not invaded, perhaps to the positive. And we’ll never know the answer to that. You don’t get fanfare for the absence of terrorist attacks that you never knew your avoided.
Richard,
You’re just not telling the whole story. Watch Bill Clinton’s 1998 State of the Union Speech and tell me Clinton doesn’t say Saddam is developing WMDs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BnceSIxxOYg
Or Hillary and her comments about Saddam and WMDs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp6YmEevHE0
Or Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Howard Dean, Jay Rockefeller, Joe Biden, Harry Reid, John Edwards, Evan Bayh and others:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSwSDvgw5Uc
The point is that the world’s intelligence community was wrong and if Bush lied so did everyone else.
@ Chris: Here’s a direct quote, from YOUR first link at the 54 second mark:
“I know I speak for everyone in this chamber, Republican and Democrat, When I say to Saddam Hussein, ‘You cannot defy the will of the world” (applause)
Well, guess what, Chris - Boy Blunder DID.
And you lick his boots.
And that’s why you’re the epitome of a republiCon.
And that’s why your party is going to get spanked, this November.
Sean2:
I didn’t read all of your comments, but I didn’t see a link to these bipartisan reports you spoke of in any of your comments. Would you provide one for us?
Also, as far as funding is concerned, I think everyone can see how difficult it would be to take funding from the military at this point. First, as Commander-in-Chief, Bush can (and probably will) keep the military in Iraq, with or without continued funding, effectively vetoing any congressional movement to stop funding the war.
If congress decided to take away funding, the whole republican party would say that the dems aren’t supporting our troops. That they need body armor and weapons and whatnot, because Bush is keeping them there. So, for congress to pass funding into the next president’s first term indicates nothing about the feeling in congress in regards to the war. They need to support the troops while this administration keeps them there.
Two Putz,
If we defied the so-called will of the world, then I think it’s wonderful. Look at France and Germany and all of the illegal money they gave to Iraq for oil. The people of both countries threw out that corrupt leadership and both Merkel and Sarkozy are much closer to the U.S. than their corrupt predecessors were. But the point is you dodged the fact that Democrats in leadership from President Clinto and his cabinet to Members of Congress to Hillary Clinton all said Iraq had WMDs and it was only time before he would have nuclear weapons. You can’t have it both ways. Fortunately, the American people don’t want to lose in Iraq and I think your party and its denial of progress there won’t carry the day in November.
Chris, who ordered the invasion? That’s a pretty simple question.