Oct
11th
2006
Democrats on Iraq, Then and Now
As a followup to the not-to-be-released GOP video I posted yesterday, here is a then-and-now video from the GOP web site:
34 Responses to “Democrats on Iraq, Then and Now”
Leave a Reply
note: by commenting, you indicate that you have read and accept all-encompassingly's comment policy. please print it and keep a copy of the document in your wall safe along with your living will or advance directive.
oowww…I love it.
this seems to be the video version of one of our posts from last july: steve’s rules on lying.
i think, in addition, it would be worthwhile to produce videos titled, “democrats and north korea” and “democrats and iran” (or perhaps, an all-encompassing video to cover the entire axis of evil: “democrats on diplomacy and war, then and now.”
of course, democrats attack the war in iraq (after many of them voted for it). but now they claim the administration is ’soft on dictators’ for seeking UN involvement and diplomatic solutions to iran and north korea.
in 2001 or 2002, bush prophetically labeled iraq, iran, and north korea an “axis of evil.” democrats told him to be nice to them.
and look where this got us: the two axis countries we didn’t attack either have or are on the verge of having nukes. and now democrats are claiming we were too nice to them.
i love it.
As a Democrat, I must say that I’ve never criticized Bush for being “nice to North Korea,” but rather for pouting in the corner, hands folded, crying, “I’m not going to talk to that meanie!”
Bush did absolutely nothing about North Korea’s threat over these past six years. Blame Clinton all you want, but the bomb was tested under Bush’s watch, with plenty of time for him to do something about it.
North Korea aside, this video about Democrats on Iraq powerfully shows the hypocrisy rampant in the Democratic Party.
The conspiracy theory about Bush knowing that nothing was in Iraq either means that 1) Bush intentionally misled & Democrats’ IQs are equivalent with the segment of the population still in diapers, or 2) Bush did not intentionally mislead & Democrats flip-flopped and then maliciously blamed him to feign noble intentions.
The silly thing with North Korea is that I think there is a lot of truth in the fact that Bush is basically darned whichever way he goes. People complain now, but if he had done more, people would have said he was trying to impose American power all over. “Iraq, North Korea, Iran! The list is endless!!!!” People could hardly handle just Iraq!
Aside from a strike against North Korean targets there isn’t much Bush could have done once he got into office (restart those marvellously effective talks that Clinton had?). On North Korea, Bill Clinton, along with Jimmy Carter, is wholly responsible for the mess.
Iran is a different story I think. Although, in all honesty, I’m not sure what we can do diplomatically. When we can’t even convince other “allies” to sanction a country led by a crazy dude who wants to eliminate Israel…what can be done?
why?
Ummm…because he had Albright give North Korea a basketball autographed by Michael Jordan.
Seriously, Dan, hop on over to Google and play with keywords like “Carter”, “Clinton”, “Albright”, “nuclear”, “North Korea”, and “deal”.
Doug,
I’m asking mainly because Bush has had six years to supposedly “fix” Clinton’s errors. What has Bush done these past six years? If North Korea is truly a threat to America, as claiming Clinton messed it up assumes, then Bush has a moral and constitutional obligation to protect America from external threats.
Show me evidence that proves that during Clinton’s years North Korea processed nuclear material or tested a bomb. The burden of proof is on you, since you make the accusation.
As proof that Bush has failed, I offer you the events of this past Sunday, when North Korea tested a nuclear bomb under Bush’s watch. What has been Bush’s response? No carrot. No stick. Nothing. Sanctions that will not go anywhere because China will not back them. I offer you July 4, 2006. North Korea tested six missiles, quite provocatively. What was Bush’s response? “Unacceptable, and intolerable.” Yet those harsh words were not backed by anything that solved the problem or made North Korea actually stop. Seriously, the fact that North Korea now has nukes and tested them, under Bush’s watch is the strongest evidence that Bush has failed.
Now, let’s go back to 1994. Clinton threatened North Korea with military confrontation over its nuclear ambitions. Not only that, but he offered a carrot. In return for stopping production, North Korea would get a light reactor (which cannot be transformed into a bomb), and economic aid. North Korea froze their nuclear production until 2002. That would be under Bush’s watch that North Korea unfroze their production of nuclear technology.
But even if Clinton didn’t stop them, what excuse does Bush have over these past six years? What excuse do Bush supporters have over these past six years? How do you defend Bush’s failure over these past six years? Blame Democrats? How does that protect our nation?
To avoid dancing in circles… Dan, what should Bush have done? What should he do now?
Dan,
I doubt you are very familiar with the witty prose of Ann Coulter.
But, are you familiar with this site? They’ve been in the news a bit since they bought Youtube.
And surely you are familiar with The New York Times. Ann Coulter references this gem in her most recent column.
So, yeah, a year and a half into Bush’s administration North Korea admitted to be developing nuclear arms for “several years.”
Before getting ahead of myself, I’ll wait to hear what you think Bush should have done differently to clean up Clinton’s mess with the North Koreans.
Doug,
Bush should have listened to his Secretary of State who said on March 6, 2001, the following:
This of course enraged Cheney and the other hawks and they gave Powell a good spanking. The next day his tone was completely opposite. I remember watching that and wondering what Powell was doing wrecking his credibility like that. But that is exactly where Bush should have begun, right where Clinton left off. Clinton had effectively frozen North Korea’s nuclear ambitions, and was close to working out a new agreement before his time as president ran out. It was now on Bush to have done something.
What did he do? Beats the heck out of me. I’ve not seen one agreement that he got the North Koreans to sign. He has not gotten the North Koreans to not reactivate their nuclear ambitions, and now they’ve tested their bomb.
This failure was right from the start. Bush came to power promising to do everything the opposite of what Clinton did. That’s a shame, because Clinton—albeit he had many faults—did some pretty good things for this world. You may not like him personally—neither do I—but his policies were pretty good.
What should be done now? Well over on my blog I recommend that we Collapse the North Korean regime. It’s time to end this, frankly. Will Bush do something like this? Nah. He doesn’t have the political will or power or influence in the world to accomplish something like this. It’s time for new leadership in America.
So what did Bush do about it? Did he threaten North Korea with a “stick” to get them to stop? Nope. So it doesn’t even matter when they started their production; what matters is what the leader of our country did about it when he found out. Show me what “success” Bush has had over these past four years since that “revelation”. Has Bush gotten the North Koreans to stop?
And the goalposts run for the exits!
Dan, incarnation #1:
The Grand Google-Poobah [editor: I am referring to Sergey and Larry's company, not myself] (with an assist from Ann Coulter and The New York Times) proves Dan wrong: Soon after the brilliant (brilliant!) 1994 pact, North Korea got to work developing nuclear weapons.
So, Dan incarnation #2:
No, of course not…
…and yet you suggest that Bush should have continued Clinton’s policy, which failed miserably. But then over on your blog you seem to suggest that we should blockade, allow our allies to get attacked by, not retaliate against, and perhaps obliterate North Korea.
I’m a bit confused…but perhaps that’s because you are also.
Dude!
I’m getting the impression that you are one of those who will never be convinced, no matter what, of the facts, like Old Confederates who still smart over losing the Civil War.
hardly. show me the proof. “several years” is too vague. That can mean two years or ten. Prove it.
In the meantime, the question still stands, what has Bush done? It really doesn’t matter if Clinton’s policy failed because Bush is in charge now. What has he done? nothing. i.e. He has failed too. So, yeah!
You mean, the War Between the States?
yeah, the one that was fought over slavery.
If you say so.
I think it was obviously a Northern aggression against those in the South who valued states’ rights.
This video compilation was a bit weak. I mean one now/then clip was that we know he has biological and chemical weapons but there was no imminent threat. Sorry, but that’s not quite hypocrisy.
Is there anyone, I mean anyone, that can honestly think a Republican video of the same type wouldn’t be 10 times more damning? Hell, we don’t even have to go back to the invasion of Iraq (though there’s plenty of fodder there). We can just go back one week and start with the Speaker of the House.
The Republican and Democratic parties have followed a general theme.
2003
—–
Republicans: For the War.
Democrats: For the War.
2006
—–
Republicans: For the War.
Democrats: Against the War.
To be honest, if Democrats “know” that Bush lied, why don’t they do anything, like impeachment? It is made obvious by the fact that they will not and cannot that their flip-floppiness is a charade designed to create doubt about the war and make them appear morally superior in providing solutions to our current problems. Hopefully it doesn’t work.
Those video clips could not be juxtaposed in more context than they currently are. It is assumed that the viewer understands the general timeline and the fact that most if not all of those featured were fully aware of all the intelligence leading to the war.
If Bush & company maliciously led us to war, shame on him and them.
If Democrats have opportunistically taken a completely opposite position and blamed Bush for their own past opinions and actions, shame on them.
Ryan,
You’ve gotta look at the situation. After 9/11 you had here in America something rarely ever seen: unity. Everybody (except me) was behind the president. (I wasn’t because I could see exactly what he was going to do with 9/11, how he was going to take advantage of it—but that’s for another story). Under such unity in wartime, why would anyone want to question the president? It made it very hard for people who saw through the BS to speak out because, right from the start, they were accused as terrorist-lovers and anti-American by Bush supporters.
Secondly, there is a reason why Democrats can’t impeach the president or do anything about it right now: they’re not in power. Since 2002, Republicans have had full rein over the entire government. Kinda hard for the Democrats to do something about it when they are not in charge. The bigger question for you is, why are Republicans rubber-stamping everything from the president? Where is the oversight?
Unity following 9/11 has little to do with pre-war intelligence and Democrats.
Since 2002, Republicans have had full rein over the entire government. Kinda hard for the Democrats to do something about it when they are not in charge.
Very hard apparently. The best they can do is try to propose censure over protective measures designed to help deter and fight terroism.
Ryan,
Actually it has a lot to do with pre-war intelligence. Unity in a time of war is essential, and the party that attempts to break that will end up losing at the polls. Democrats understood this and tried to walk that fine line. The intelligence pre-war was dubious at best, and an outright lie at worst, but do you take the chance of having your party completely debunked and discredited by taking a full stand against the president of the United States when it comes to war?
I really wish Republicans would look at these first few years post-9/11 a little more objectively so they can see better what happened. But, unfortunately, I think only historians about 100 years from now will ever get this said correctly and factually. Right now, both sides are still too hot at each other for either to accept the reality.
Dan,
Are you saying that Democrats “saw through the BS” and thought that “intelligence pre-war was dubious at best, and an outright lie at worst”? And then to hold on to political power (wouldn’t want to lose an election on principle!) they decided to go along with the “lies and deception”?
Interesting…
Yeah…something just doesn’t click here…
Imagine if you will what would have happened to the Democrats if they decided to go against the president from the start. They would have been blown away in the elections of 2002 and 2004. They’d have no chance of bringing down the Republican juggernaut for decades (and in the meantime, our nation would fall to even worse extremes than it currently is). Oh, I definitely wish they had more backbone back in 2002, but, well, very few people did want to stand up to the president and say, “hey wait a second, your accusations don’t add up.”
Actions speak.
Words don’t.
End of story.
I’ll remember that the next time Republicans calculate their moves based on the election period…..oh wait, they do that every election….
Hmmm…and you were just arguing that Democrats were the ones who did that.
Of course both sides have shenanigans. I would be biased towards the Republicans having less, but hey, difference of opinion.
With regard to the subject of the post though, all I can say is:
You cannot regain in principle what you have lost in fact.
True, but I could also show so many evidences of Republican hypocrisy, bhut it serves no beneficial purpose, so I move on
Here is the answer you all are looking for. Kim Jong Il and Company, unbeknownst to the rest of the world, has miraculously figured out how to produce Nuclear weapons at will, instantaneously, without any nuclear feces to work with because they are so smart and technologically advanced. What Bush didn’t do was to allow himself to be suckered into unilateral talks for obvious reasons (see next few lines). Want the Democrats did, (what Bush didn’t do) was to give Kim Jong Il a nuclear reactor and the fissile material necessary to run it and hundreds of millions of US dollars in food, oil and aid to help the destitute people of North Korea. Looks good at surface level, but the program was flawed, lacking even the most informal means of verification. Kim elected to starve his people while using the US aid to feed and expand his army and to build uranium bombs. The lowest estimate is that Kim starved to death over 1 million of his own people, even with the US aid. Poof ….. instant nukes, yea right!
Michelle,
Um…..North Korea actually got their nuclear technology from our bestest buddy on the war on terror, Pakistan, through their good doctor, Dr. Kahn.
Please read this to be enlightened.
Clinton gave North Korea a light water reactor (impossible to make nukes out of that material), giving North Korea the ability to use nuclear technology for energy without creating nuclear weapons. It was Pakistan, where Bin Laden is hiding, that owns nukes, that is run by a dictator, that gave North Korea its nukes.
[...] previously: * hi, i’m spineless and i want a vacation * democrats on iraq, then and now * (not) potential GOP ad Posted by travis in travis, politics, terrorism | [...]
[...] Dan, comment, Oct 2006 [link] [...]