Home / Dishonest Dems

Dishonest Dems

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

Let me start off by saying I am a centrist who leans to the right. So it is with the delight of a cat watching two mice fight that I observe the machinations of the Democratic primary. And although I'd never vote for any of the contenders for the Dem nod, lets face it, the GOP race is rather boring. Giuliani and Thompson are basically done for, turning that race into a competition of the milquetoast, with McCain being the only interesting candidate left (and my ideal choice in case you were wondering).

The reason why I don't vote Dem is because I've always felt the meat of the Democrat platform always sounded like so much hot air. Striving to help the poor, or to make health care more readily available to the underprivileged is a very noble and worthwhile goal. However, if this is the mainstay of a presidential platform then the focus just isn't right. There is important business in front of this country on matters as crucial as the economy and security. And no matter what we do, the poor won't be better off if we don't take care of those two very important issues first. Unfortunately when you search the left's platform for how they'd address these two vital issues, talk invariably tends to move into tax increases for the rich, and withdrawing from Iraq.

demsNot that the GOP doesn't have its own moments of silliness. Who really cares about who is allowed to get married to who, or even to what species for that matter? I mean sure, I can see why some people are emotional over the "soft" issues of gay marriage and abortion, but the GOP's main (successful) platform has always been the economy and security – it's the basis by which they've always gotten elected. Not homophobia, not morals, it's all about the Benjamins.

Dishonest Discourse

In recent times, the left has feigned ignorance when it suited them. Remember the whole Iraq and 9/11 connection? I am sure those of the left still SWEAR that Bush connected Saddam to 9/11. I am a speech junky. I actually watch all those press conferences and addresses. I can attest that I have never heard Bush connect Saddam to 9/11. I've seen Bush correctly connect Saddam to terror, as Saddam was a major state sponsor of terror, and he did have links with al Qaeda, Hammas, etc. And while I may not have heard every speech the president has given, were a direct connection to 9/11 really part of the case to go to war, the whole debate about going to Iraq would have been different. Perhaps we would have gotten multilateral support in the UN for invading Iraq, as we did in Afghanistan, had the Bush administration really been able to make a direct connection between Saddam and 9/11. Fact is, they didn't.

Yet, the Dems were very effective at clouding this issue, casually interchanging "al Qaeda" with "9/11," and then disproving the connection to 9/11. And this strategy worked, flummoxing an easily flummoxed Bush administration, and calling into question, for the less intently listening, the purpose behind the War on Terror and Iraq. For approximately a year, I had to hear the left-leaning media constantly chant that Saddam was only ever linked to al Qaeda the organization, and not 9/11, the act (as if that makes it all ok).

Still this kind of misdirection is somewhat acceptable to me. It's not the full on cherry picking of words used entirely out of context (or in some cases an entirely new context). Moreover, this type of behavior should have been kept in check by the other side speaking clearly (something Bush failed to do in this and several other instances). And at least those furthering this misdirection have some plausible deniability that they are actually ignorant, and not just pretending to be ignorant.

Similar situations abound such as the "Attorney General scandal," the firing of the Attorney Generals wasn't even illegal (but someone apparently forgot to tell Alberto Gonzales). Then the Plame leak, the warrantless wiretaps, the SWIFT monitoring. To hear liberals tell it, Bush and Cheney should be facing a lethal injection right now, were it not for their personally owning the industrial-military complex, and also because of an apparently hamstrung Democrat majority in both houses of congress (chuckle). But the truth is that all these manufactured "bushgates" prove that the Bush administration has made some really stupid, and perhaps ethical mistakes, nothing more.

Campaign Trail Antics

On the campaign trail Democrats have been reaching new heights of silliness, ensuring that I and likely many other Americans, won't be voting for them in any November, 2008 and beyond. It all started when Clinton was charged with racism – something I didn't expect from the wife of the first black president. It turns out that she insulted none other than the honorable Dr. Martin Luther King. And to make matters worse, Bill outright claimed that Obama's quest for the Whitehouse was a "fairy tale", presumably because he was black. Clearly Hillary is a racist and should not be our next president, right?

What Hillary actually said was that it took a president to take King's vision and turn it into law. This isn't an insult to Dr. King, it's the truth.  Dr. King was a visionary, and his words were able to move presidents into action. This doesn't take anything away from King's accomplishments, nor the president who was open and receptive to Kings words, and willing to answer with political action. I think it's pretty impressive for any person to hold that much sway, to be that inspiring, not to mention an African American speaking about equality in 1960's America.

What Bill actually said was that Obama's foreign policy stance was a "fairy tale." Given what limited information there is available on Obama's foreign policy, this may actually be accurate. But even if I disagreed with our former President, his statements were anything but racist in nature.

Yet Obamaites, and the media went along with the show, echoing the sentiment that these statements were racism, not even bothering to clarify the situation. Curiously, even Tim Russert aired the sound bytes and not the context behind these statements, when Hillary appeared on Meet the Press. This omission by NBC made it that much more confusing for us, the voters, to understand what was really going on here.

More recently, Edwards rebuked Obama for his supposed support of Ronald Reagan. Obama correctly noted that Reagan, in his time, changed the path that this country was on. This wasn't a comment in support of the GOP, it wasn't "anti-Union" talk as Edwards faux populism would have you believe, it was a statement as to the occasional desire by the electorate for change, and the type of leader that is needed to fill that role. Considering the source, you could make a reasoned argument that Obama turned the image of Reagan on it's head, claiming that he would in fact be for Democrats what Reagan was for the GOP. But that didn't stop Edwards from ignorantly ranting on. Are we to believe that none of Edwards’ staff had any opportunity to read what Obama actually said?

Hillary is speaking about what it takes to be president. Bill arguing the merits (or lack of) of another candidate’s policy. Obama talking about the positives of a past leader, regardless of which "side" he was on. Apparently this type of reasonable discourse is way  ver the heads of the media and members of the more fundamentalist (or just mental) wing of the Democrats. Instead, they seem to only hear about 4 words of every sentence, and it happens to be the worst four words that could be chosen. This isn't by coincidence.  Omission of all of the facts is dishonesty.  Selective recall is dishonesty.

Platform Issues

If only this problem was limited to campaign rhetoric, and maybe the occasional partisan bashing, I wouldn't be nearly as concerned. But it's not. On the issues themselves, Democrat positions often play with the truth.

Hillary recently said in the Nevada debates, "I would also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We now have, once again, police deaths going up around the country, and in large measure because bad guys now have assault weapons again. We stopped it for awhile. Now they’re back on the streets." This statement is not based on any facts.

It is true that police deaths were up sharply in 2007 (41 more deaths than in 2006, a total of 186 deaths as of Dec 26, 2007), as MSNBC reported, there were 17 more police deaths by shooting in 2007. MSNBC attributed most of the uptick to traffic fatalities (81 deaths). And there is no evidence that this year's additional 17 shootings were carried out by assault weapons, or that a growing number of deaths were caused by assault weapons. While we don’t know what kind of weapons were used, it's much more likely that regular handgun carrying criminals carried out these crimes simply because handguns are easier for criminals to pack. Not to mention the obvious point that cop killers are already breaking the law, do they really care what weapon might be illegal? It's obviously not the weapon that is the problem when a cop is killed; it's the guy doing the killing. Government bans only affect the law abiding citizens who wouldn't kill cops anyway.

But if this logic escapes, then consider that it's been a couple of years since the Assault Weapons Ban expired, and despite the predictions of doom by AWB supporters, murder and crime stats are the same or down on average across the country. Cities like New York are experiencing never before lows in murder and other crimes without the AWB in effect. The fact is that Hillary's unsubstantiated exhortations were plain lies, although I suspect Ken Starr won't be investigating.

Hillary's recent Economic Stimulus Plan should really be called Hillary's Pet Projects plan. Does anyone really believe that energy assistance for the poor, bailing out irresponsible lenders, and "green collar jobs" will have any material impact on the real economy? And all this to the tune of $70 billion more taxpayer funded dollars!

Before the specter of a recession reared it's head, Hillary's main economic program consisted of calling for the rollback of the "Bush" tax cuts to pay for her government healthcare program. Should she get elected, after paying for this $70 billion dollar package, and HillaryCare, and the rollback of the Bush tax cuts, this country will find itself in serious need a lot more than a simple economic stimulus package.

My definition of economic stimulus is similar to that of most economists – tax cuts for those paying taxes, coupled with government spending restraint, and perhaps strategic public investment in the private sector. (I leave out actions by the Federal Reserve as they *should* be independent). Income redistribution programs, tax increases and government spending increases are not stimulants. That the Democratic party has been able to continue pushing this fallacy that tax cuts are bad, but government spending programs and assistance programs for the poor are good economic policy, is one of the most egregious examples of political dishonesty in modern times. The only thing more perplexing to me is the hordes of Americans who willingly vote for people running on this platform.

For those who will try to cast me as the typical child-eating, heartless, and dim-witted Republican (another dishonest stereotype perpetuated by the left), let me say that I am not against assistance programs for the poor. In fact, I think every great society should help it's underprivileged. The problem is that these programs are being prmoted under the guise of economic stimulus. For those making the more reasoned argument that I am forgetting about deficits, I am not. But as I've noted in previous columns, closing the government's budgetary deficit won't help the economy. Paying down private American held debt will, but Americans are not encouraged to do that when taxes are high.

Hillary on her health care plan: "It puts the consumer in the driver's seat by offering more choices and lowering costs. If you're one of the tens of million Americans without coverage or if you don't like the coverage you have, you will have a choice of plans to pick from and that coverage will be affordable. Of course, if you like the plan you have, you can keep it."

It's a fact that the total cost of Hillary's health care program is unknown. The impacts that such a change would have to the way the insurance and medical industries function, are compensated, and are invested in, is unknown. The resulting quality of care, and the viability of research and development efforts in the industry are unknown.

Reading her plan, Clinton is really proposing that the government engage in mandating what doctors are paid, what drug makers can charge for their products, and what and who insurance companies will cover. Such meddling will have an impact on the attractiveness of the medical field, from the perspective of bright young minds going through the arduous process of becoming doctors, to private sector investors looking to partner with companies to devise future medical advances.

With insurers forced to expand whom they cover, regardless of the risk assessment, how can the cost of coverage get cheaper? The most likely outcome of such a change is that many private sector insurers drop out of the business. It's not so farfetched to suggest that sometime down the road, after we've desiccated our existing medical industry in favor of politics, that the need for a quasi public insurer would arise, kind of like a Freddy or Fannie for health insurance.

A myriad of negative outcomes can occur with such a massive change to an industry that today, by some estimates represents approximately 16% of our GDP and growing. To claim to know what would happen and to suggest that what would happen would be an improvement over what we have now is pure conjecture. The only truthful thing that can be said about the impact HillaryCare would have on the care we receive, is that it will be different. How remains to be seen, and to suggest otherwise is dishonest.

One of the best examples of dishonesty among the Democrats is on one of the most important issues of the day – the whole "discussion" on Iraq. I don't care if you were pro-war or anti-war from the beginning. Let's be honest, withdrawal means retreat. Redeployment means failure. Why not call it that? I'd have had respect for the Democrats position on the war if they just said, "Listen, we are losing and we need to leave, it's not worth it for the US to be in Iraq." The choices facing this country should be on the merits of the choice itself. Instead, the truth is molded, we are "redeploying out of Iraq” – nonsense! How can anyone possibly take this seriously?

And don't even get me started on the whole privatized Social Security "debate" where the Democrats cut off our nose to spite Bush. Thanks for that guys!

Note that I've focused on Hillary for the bulk of this article. Hillary is leading the primary race, and considering the way the delegates are split in the Democratic primary, she will likely win. More importantly, she has been best able to communicate specifics of where she stands on these issues (to me at least). I have similar problems with all of the other Dem candidates. Especially Edwards, who raises the game of dishonest political pandering to an all time high.

On The Other Hand…

This phenomenon is not specific to the Democrats. Certainly there are those in the GOP who engage in dishonesty. However, as a rule, the GOP candidates have managed to avoid a dust-up akin to the racial warfare of Clinton-Obama, or the faux populism of Edwards-Obama.

Much more importantly, on the issues there is much less spin on the right. You don't have to parse words wondering where GOP pols stand. Even if you disagree with the GOP on issues such as abortion, gun control, or even the war in Iraq, the positions the candidates have taken are based on an observable logic, and it's not masked in double-speak.

For example, I support a woman's right to abortion. The GOP is against the practice of abortion. While I disagree that it should be outlawed, it's hard to disagree that abortion is murder. I am for choice because if it were illegal, then young women would die getting abortions illegally. While I may disagree with the GOP on this issue, at least they are honest about where they stand and why.

The GOP generally supports the constitutional right to bear arms. Even if you hate guns, you can't deny that right was one explicitly given to us by the Framers of this great country. If the goal is to reduce violence, then let's have that discussion and not spend hours arguing over which type of murder weapons are ok, and which aren't.

On the War in Iraq, the GOP wants to do anything possible to win, and they believe the way to get there is to actually win the conflict on the ground. I can respect someone who disagrees that it’s worth the effort. But let's actually have that discussion and decide what is best for the country. Endlessly uttering words like diplomacy or redeployment in the sheep’s clothing of just wanting to quit is dishonesty.

There are many things that I find in common with my fellow countrymen on the left. I really hope that we can get together and have an open and honest discussion about them one of these days.

Powered by

About The Obnoxious American

  • As usual, Mr Obnoxious, you line up as many straw men as you can fit into one article, shoot them down with rhetoric posing as “facts,” and then accuse the other side of being dishonest. I’m not even sure you’re aware of this when you do it.

    But there is no reasoning involved in your [loooong] articles. They boil down to “I am a right winger and I agree with rightist positions and disagree with anything even slightly left of center, period.” [You are not, by any stretch of anyone’s definition except perhaps Rush Limbaugh’s, a centrist.] If you simply said that, you would save a lot of inches of type.

    Your section on 9/11 is utter nonsense, not based on facts of any kind.

    Your complaint that we Dems make an issue out of a non-issue in the case of the federal attorney firings is offensive and wide of the mark. If it doesn’t bother you that the Bush administration was using Republican loyalty as a qualification test for attorneys, why not? Aren’t there better ways for the Attorney General of the US to spend his time?

    And on and on. You repeat boilerplate about taxes and health care and national security, and you seem to think you have proven something important. Not even close.

  • Solid article, ObAm. I predict lots of flack from lefties, but the basic truths here aren’t likely to go away no matter how much they wish.


  • Egbert Sousé

    I would refer to you as the classic “ill-informed American” since your ignorance appears to not be feigned.

    “I am sure those of the left still SWEAR that Bush connected Saddam to 9/11.”

    Not just the left although you don’t cite any. The Bush administration constantly conflated the two issues in speeches and interviews. They were the ones who clouded the issue.

    In an interview in June 2004 with Gloria Borges of CNBC after the 9/11 commission stated there was no proof of a connection between Iraq and 9/11, Cheney continued to muddy the waters by saying ‘We don’t know.'”

    He didn’t say there was one but he didn’t agree there wasn’t a connection, leaving the issue open and undecided which is why

    “Sixty-nine percent in a Washington Post poll published Saturday said they believe it is likely the Iraqi leader was personally involved in the attacks carried out by al-Qaeda. A majority of Democrats, Republicans and independents believe it’s likely Saddam was involved.”
    -USA Today 9/6/2003

    “47 percent believe that Saddam Hussein helped plan and support the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11, 2001 (up six percentage points from November).

    44 percent actually believe that several of the hijackers who attacked the U.S. on September 11 were Iraqis (up significantly from 37% in November).”
    -Harris Poll February 18, 2005

    Do you agree or disagree that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and the 9/11 terror attacks?


    Agree 46% 32% 65% 39%

    Disagree 50% 65% 30% 56%

    -Zogby Poll September 05, 2006

    65% of GOP respondents as late as 2006 still believed the link and that’s the work of the Left and the Dems? Right.

    This section was so error-filled and poorly researched that I gave up on the rest because I had no faith in the author or the editors. No doubt The Unabomber’s Manifesto was more focused and less rambling.

  • So rather than address his points you’re making the argument that because the American People were convinced that there was a connection between Iraq and the 9/11 attack, that means that the Bush administration actively promoted that belief. So there’s no responsibility to be attached to the media or the hundreds of Democrats who voted for the AUMF or to the people themselves for not paying closer attention to the facts and leaping to conclusions instead?

    Do you deny that Saddam was a sponsor of terrorism?

    Do you deny that what Bush declared was a War on Terror, not just a war on al Qaeda, the 9/11 attackers or Iraq?

    Do you deny that the AUMF listed 17 causes for attacking Iraq, not ONE of which had to do with the 9/11 attack?

    If you don’t deny these three well-documented facts, then you have to admit that attacking Iraq made some sense under the concept of a general war on terror and the reasoning of the AUMF. You might also want to admit that Saddam’s non-existent involvement in 9/11 was NEVER in play except in the poor reporting of the media and the minds of a poorly informed public.

    Come on, you can do it. Admitting the truth of the situation is NOT the same as endorsing the war on terror or the war in Iraq. Both can still be bad ideas poorly executed even once you’ve accepted the fundamental truth of how we embarked on those ill-fated efforts.


  • The Obnoxious American

    Thanks Dave, and you are already right, as Egbert and handy guy prove.

    I must say that so far I am disappointed in the responses, rather than debate the many valid points I bring up, I am being chastised on the length of the article, and called ignorant because some polls show some Americans (on both sides of the fence) who did not listen so carefully when their country was on the eve of war.

    I find no fault with Cheney saying “We don’t know” because, he didn’t know. One of the other lies perpetuated by the left is that there was this evil master plan by Bush and Cheney to go into Iraq despite the impassioned pleas of the country against.

    Reality check – before the war in Iraq, we all thought saddam was a bad guy. Remember on Seinfeld episode when george and kramer were stuck in a spot by a double parker? They were ready to kill the guy when he came back. But when the guy showed up hours later, he looked so much like Saddam that they got scared.

    I won’t go into detail on the characterization of Saddam in the South Park movie, except to say that he joined forces with the Devil…

    I cite these popular culture references to point out that Saddam was actually viewed as a bad guy by the majority of Americans. And of course there was the 1991 gulf war, 1998 bombings, escalation in the no-fly zone, etc.

    As Dave correctly points out, there were MANY reasons to go to war in Iraq, not all of them were about yellowcake or 911. The only connection between 911 and Iraq is that after the attacks of 911, we just couldn’t let someone like Saddam, who sponsored terror, who wanted to build WMDs and who drew our attention away from the WOT, to continue to exist.

    Let’s not forget that the bush admin was actually cheered on to go to war in Iraq by none other than the husband of the current Dem front runner!

  • Leslie Bohn

    Pres. Bush in a letter to Congress,March 21, 2003:

    The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

    There is certainly a way to argue that the above statement makes no “direct connection.” But the intended meaning could not be more clear.

  • The Obnoxious American

    But it doesn’t say it. In fact, it’s quite clear in terms of not saying it, the use of the word “including” is the key word in that quote – meaning both countries that support terror, and including countries that were involved in 9/11.

    Given Iraq’s long history of support for terrorism, it fits the bill entirely. This muddling of the facts cannot be laid at the president’s feet.

    Does that make the decision to go to war a closed case? Perhaps not. Does it excuse the management of the war itself? Not at all.

    What I don’t understand is why we could not have this discussion on the merits. It shouldn’t be about casting aspersions, it should be an open and honest discussion about what is best for this country. Instead, the Dems characterize Bush as evil and wanting to avenge his father (as if getting re-elected wasn’t revenge enough) and rushing to war. This is simply untrue, and the argument isn’t necessary.

    Only the Democrats could take an opportunity, where they are arguably in the right, and wind up being wrong by turning it into a demonization, rather than an actual discourse on the issues. The 2008 race would be a lock for the Dems right now if they only did that.


    All of this said, this article isn’t about the War in Iraq. That’s just a small part of it.

    I’d ask those who disagree with me to read past the 4th paragraph where I bring up the Iraq/911 connection, and read on to the section entitled “Platform Issues” – this is the real meat of the article, this is the real indictment of the Dem platform. I dare anyone here to refute the arguments I made there on their merits, and not by character assassination of the Obnoxious One.

  • What many of us objected to regarding the Bush administration and the question of Saddam’s connection to 9/11 was this:

    The general public at the time had come to see a connection that wasn’t there. In polls, a significant number of Americans believed Saddam was involved in the 9/11 attacks. But no one from the administration bothered to correct this misinformation, because it served their purposes rather well. The media didn’t do a great job of pointing this out at the time, either.

    And William Safire, Dick Cheney and others did promote allegations [still unproven and since widely disputed and discredited] that hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi agents. There are rightists who still cling to that one, even now.

  • The Obnoxious American

    That’s a fair objection, but also be sure to include the Democrat Party who could and should have made that case. But they didn’t.

    I think there is good reason why they didn’t. Before Bush fumbled on Iraq, people generally were united in the desire to see Saddam go down, especially after 911. Sure, there were some anti war supporters, always are. But the simple fact is that most of the country did support the effort to go to war against Saddam, many democrats even voted for it.

    What I don’t like is when the left turns this conflict into some personal adgenda for Bush. Or turn it into a so called war for oil. Or to turn it into a “rush to war”. It’s 20/20 hindsight at it’s finest (or worst).

    I think the case to take out Saddam was strong enough without even mentioning 9/11. I also think that the handling of the war was absolutely lacking. I also think the surge has turned it around, and has given us a second opportunity. All the more reason why we need to have a real bi-partisan conversation on this topic, and America needs to quit with the nonsense and get on the ball now or the gains we’ve made in the last year will really be temporary.

  • The Obnoxious American

    I’d just like to reiterate that I would favor moving on from this dead horse of a topic (Iraq and 9/11).

    This article is about dishonesty within the Democrats platform. Let’s try and discuss that, specifically the issues I’ve raised in the “Platform Issues” section of the above article.

  • REMF

    “What I don’t like is when the left turns this conflict into some personal adgenda for Bush. Or turn it into a so called war for oil. Or to turn it into a “rush to war”.”
    – OA

    And what I don’t like is when someone from the right (who’s never served) just shrugs their shoulders at the loss of 3,900 American lives on the invasion/occupation of Iraq, and the $500 billion we’ve wasted on that shithole over there.

  • Obnox, Iraq and 9/11 was one of the issues you raised in your article – albeit not in that section.

    A quibble, maybe, but you can’t make a bold statement like “I can attest that I have never heard Bush connect Saddam to 9/11” and then expect people not to argue with you.

  • The Obnoxious American


    I’ve never shrugged my shoulders at the loss of 4000 of my countrymen. In fact, the reason why I am adamant about ensuring that we actually make something out of the recent gains is precisely to ensure that sacrifice was not wasted.

    Keep on making the points I’ve raised about me, rather than the issues. It shows real conviction of beliefs. I certainly don’t need to lower myself to the level of personal attacks when debating you. Keep making a mockery of yourself.

    Dr. Dreadful,

    Well, I’ve never heard him directly connect it. And so far, no one has proven me wrong, and they wont be able to. Bush simply never made that allegation, and if he did, he would have had multilateral support in the UN. We are in fact arguing the very point I made in the article. I don’t care if you believe that he made the connotation without saying it. This country WAS in a different place before we went to war in Iraq. Bush actually had a majority support in polls back then. Even Dems voted in support of the war. Let’s not engage in silly 20/20 hindsight (not you specifically Doc) and instead actually debate what is best for this country.

    As far as my comment about moving on, my point is that there is so much more to this article than the old tired debate about Iraq. I am willing to continue talking about it, but if no one wants to address the myriad of other issues I’ve raised, then clearly there simply isn’t a rebuttal for what I’ve raised.

  • “The Obnoxious American” touches on so many issues it’s hard to know where to begin a response, but I would like to focus on Dave’s comments regarding the War in Iraq and “The Obnoxious American’s” definition of “economic stimulus.”

    I “don’t deny [the] three well-documented facts, that Dave mentions, but I’ve been opposed to the war in Iraq from the beginning. I would think that the results so far (even allowing for the “success” of the surge in reducing the carnage to some extent) would make it difficult for even supporters of the war to maintain “that attacking Iraq made some sense under the concept of a general war on terror…” Some maybe, but not much.

    As I am not among the willfully blind, I will readily admit we are in a war on terror. That war was begun when Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda declared war on us.

    I will further stipulate that I am not a military expert, I don’t have any idea exactly how many terrorists are aligned against us,or the best strategy for defeating them and protecting the American people.

    We are in the early stages of a long war against terror that is fundamentally different from any war we have fought before. Our military leaders and the C. I. A. need to be flexible and creative in devising innovative methods to contain the terrorist threat as effectively as possible without destroying the Fourth Amendment or occupying Muslim countries all around the world.

    I don’t believe the War in Iraq was a wise strategic move. Refusing to acknowledge our mistake and staying bogged down there could compound the error.

    Regarding the economy, “the Obnoxious American” says that his “definition of economic stimulus is similar to that of most economists – tax cuts for those paying taxes, coupled with government spending restraint, and perhaps strategic public investment in the private sector. . . . Income redistribution programs, tax increases and government spending increases are not stimulants.”

    He is right to include tax cuts, but wrong to include “government spending restraint” and and to say that “government spending increases are not stimulants.” The success of the New Deal in combating the effects of the Great Depression proved that government spending is a very effective stimulant.

    Instead of debating how big of a bonus check to send out to encourage us to go shopping, Bush and Congress should be spending as much as possible to put people to work rebuilding our infrastructure. (I hear there’s a bridge in Minneapolis that could use some work.) We could combat the effects of global warming by putting people to work planting trees.

    That is a stimulus that would last much longer than a quick shopping spree. And if people go shopping for clothes, toys, or other items made in another country the stimulus will be felt there instead of here.

    There is plenty of work to be done, yet the unemployment rate is rising. We should put every able-bodied person to work doing something of value to our society. That would be a very effective economic stimulus.

  • bliffle

    Dems are dishonest for the same reason reps are dishonest, and to the same degree: they’re politicians.

    All you’ve stated are the usual strawman arguments.

  • The Obnoxious American


    I think your first point has merit, and I certainly won’t get into the argument with you that the War in Iraq was a bad strategic move. You may very well be correct in that. As I said in the article, I think that’s a valid position. What I am attacking in the article are all of the “other” positions taken by the democrats on this issue, none of which are as sober as the one you laid out. Had Kerry been able to make such a case during his presidential run, Bush might have been limited to a single term.

    However, on the other point I have to disagree. While there may have been merits to the new deal, I don’t agree that it is the government’s position to act in the private sector. As the bridges to nowhere prove (a GOP construction), the government does not do anything well. And it is based on this that I don’t feel that they should be taking on such endeavors.

    Moreover, for government spending (i.e. our tax dollars) to really make a dent in the economy would mean spending at such levels that the resulting individual tax burden would make this country go into a permanent recession. Let’s let the private sector do business and let’s let the government do it’s job, which is not to build bridges or anything for that matter.


    Have the respect to read the article before you comment. Straw man is a nice word to throw around, but in this case as in others where that allegation was made, but in this case especially, it’s false.

  • I’m new to blogging and I am still having trouble addressing people by a “handle” as opposed to their given name. Furthermore, I don’t find “The Obnoxious American” to be obnoxious at all. I’m enjoying our discussion. So…

    My Dear Fellow (not really obnoxious) American:

    In Jackson County, Missouri, where I live. there are numerous bridges and buildings, including City Hall in Kansas City, Missouri, that were built during the nineteen-thirties as part of the New Deal. They are still standing today and functioning quite well. They were, and still are, called “public-works projects” for a reason. Although private contractors have managed to get more and more of the work over the past few decades, building the sewage systems, roads, bridges, etc that make up a large part of our infrastructure is considered by many to be the responsibility of the government.

    If you object to government working in the private sector, I’m sure Halliburton would be willing to build anything we want (for double the price) under a government contract. Either way it’s a more effective means of stimulating the economy than handing out checks for $800 on a one-time basis.

    At the risk of revealing myself as a card-carrying Keynesian, to combat a downward spiral in the economy, government should cut taxes and increase spending. Politicians usually have no problem with this part of Keynes prescription. The other part of the Keynesian equation is more problematic for politicians. When the economy is humming along and expanding nicely, Keynes recommends cutting spending and increasing taxes to pay down the deficits accumulated while combating a recession. This puts the government in a position to combat the next downturn without running up an enormous public debt.

    Voters, many of whom are less than astute with regard to economic matters, don’t like this part of the deal. Politicians who want to remain in office are perfectly willing to spare voters this pain. Hence our runaway national debt. What a lovely gift for our grandchildren.

    You say “the government does not do anything well.” We’ve got the most powerful and effective armed forces in the world. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation has provided a level of stability to our banking system that was not present prior to its creation. Here in Independence, Missouri the city government owns the electric and water companies and provides great service and very tasty water. (No need to fill up the dump with plastic bottles ‘round here, though many people still do.)

    More to the point at hand, if you compare the severity of business cycles prior to the New Deal with those since, you will see that the government does a half-way decent job of smoothing out the cycles of boom and bust that are endemic to capitalism. Perhaps someday the voting public will learn to resist the urge to punish legislators who are willing to pay down the national debt when the opportunity presents itself and the government will do an ever better job of helping our market economy grow at a sustainable rate without the severe business cycles that typically plague market economies.

  • REMF

    “In fact, the reason why I am adamant about ensuring that we actually make something out of the recent gains is precisely to ensure that sacrifice was not wasted.”
    – Obnoxious American

    And thank God for the men and women who are brave enough to actually serve and “ensure” those “gains.”

  • george

    Whether you heard it or not the connection was made by bush again and again and only retards bought it. Oh yeah! Your article was way too long and boring.

  • Yes, Saddam was connected to al Qaeda.

    Take a look at his men admitting it…

  • Straw man is a nice word to throw around, but in this case as in others where that allegation was made, but in this case especially, it’s false.

    You mean, it’s a straw man…?


  • The Obnoxious American


    For once, I could not agree with you more.


    All interesting points. I do think that government *can* do things effectively. Unfortunately, I don’t usually see evidence of that. Haliburton is a case in point, while they charged excesses, it was our government that decided to use them. NASA is another example. I just don’t think this is the same America, with the same selflessness and decency among people, to accomplish the things that were possibly just 40 years ago. Perhaps I am wrong about that, but I just happen to think that the mindset these days, is much different.

    Ultimately, I don’t think either approach is fully right, because government can’t always be trusted to accomplish things properly, and the private sector can’t be trusted to accomplish things that are not in their own interest. It is a balance.

  • Mark, you’ve obviously spent a lot more time on this than I have, but from what I can see, every last reference on your site is to terror-related activities by former regime members after Saddam’s demise.

    Propaganda portraying Saddam as a lynchpin of global terror has a tenuous provenance at best.

  • The Obnoxious American


    I’d like you to produce a single quote where Bush does that. I do agree, only retards bought into the idea, but I don’t agree that he ever said it.

    Mark E,

    Agree 100%



    Can we talk about the other “Platform Issues” I raised also? pretty please? I am dying to talk about the AWB.

  • Bennett

    “Haliburton is a case in point, while they charged excesses, it was our government that decided to use them.”

    See “Cheney, Dick, U.S.V.P., Ex-Haliburton Pres”

    “NASA is another example.”

    Of what? Appointing Mike Griffin to head NASA was just about the only thing I can think of that this administration got right. Unlike Haliburton, NASA works for us. Nothing Haliburton does has the ability to inspire anyone other than shareholders and war profiteers.

    Please, wax poetic about your “Platform Issues” and how they can be sung by the “Average White Band”.

  • “Let me start off by saying I am a centrist who leans to the right.”

    Who are you kidding? you’re about as much a centrist as I am…

  • Maurice

    #15 bliffle

    Wow! I never thought you and I would agree on anything! You nailed it buddy!

  • The Obnoxious American


    I am a centrist. I share views with both parties. Can you honestly say the same? Given some of our prior discussions, I don’t believe you are a centrist, and I think you are proud of that (not that you shouldn’t be). But claiming that I am not a centrist is just your attempt to color my comments as completely Republican in nature. It’s yet another “straw man.” I think you are going to have to do better than that if you want anyone to take you seriously in this discussion.


    Yes yes, it’s all a big scam by cheney to make money off of the Iraq war. Sure. Perhaps Cheney’s political experience is why a company like Haliburton hired him. And perhaps the fact that Haliburton does the kind of work that the government needs is why the government hired Haliburton to assist in Iraq. I am not a fan of no-bid contracts, although when you are in the middle of a war, waiting for RFP’s may not be the best course of action either.

    Since you brought up Haliburton, I’d like you to mention another American company, one whose operations are a known quantity to the executive branch, that could have provided similar services in Iraq.

    As far as NASA, I agree that the appointment was a good choice. What I mean when I refer to NASA is the undeniable fact that the NASA of today is not the NASA that got us to the moon. We’ve lost something there, and that goes to my point about this American being different than the American of 40 or more years ago. Context baby.

  • FYI. Read it.

  • odo

    935 Lies Bush Told
    WASHINGTON – A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found that President Bush and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from Iraq in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks.

    The study concluded that the statements “were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses.”

    The study was posted Tuesday on the Web site of the Center for Public Integrity, which worked with the Fund for Independence in Journalism.

    White House spokesman Scott Stanzel did not comment on the merits of the study Tuesday night but reiterated the administration’s position that the world community viewed Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, as a threat.

    “The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.

    The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction or was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to al-Qaida or both.

    “It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida,” according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. “In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003.”

    Named in the study along with Bush were top officials of the administration during the period studied: Vice President Dick Cheney, national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Colin Powell, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and White House press secretaries Ari Fleischer and Scott McClellan.

    Bush led with 259 false statements, 231 about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 28 about Iraq’s links to al-Qaida, the study found. That was second only to Powell’s 244 false statements about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 10 about Iraq and al-Qaida.

    The center said the study was based on a database created with public statements over the two years beginning on Sept. 11, 2001, and information from more than 25 government reports, books, articles, speeches and interviews.

    “The cumulative effect of these false statements — amplified by thousands of news stories and broadcasts — was massive, with the media coverage creating an almost impenetrable din for several critical months in the run-up to war,” the study concluded.

    “Some journalists — indeed, even some entire news organizations — have since acknowledged that their coverage during those prewar months was far too deferential and uncritical. These mea culpas notwithstanding, much of the wall-to-wall media coverage provided additional, ‘independent’ validation of the Bush administration’s false statements about Iraq,” it said.


  • The Obnoxious American

    I’ve read this article. False statements do not equal lies. That these non-profit (but not necessarily non-partisan) organizations suggest that our lack of quality intel equals “[leading] the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses” is where you lose me.

    The VAST majority of the false statements were in regards to Iraq’s WMD’s (of Bush’s 259 false statements, 231 were about WMDs). Thing is, the WHOLE WORLD thought Iraq had WMDs. How can you suggest that because Bush agreed with what was generally accepted intel, that he was somehow not just wrong, but also lying?

    Trying to turn what was obviously a mistake in judgement into something more evil, such as a lie, is just another form of democrat dishonesty. I will reiterate the admin’s response:

    “The actions taken in 2003 were based on the collective judgment of intelligence agencies around the world,” Stanzel said.

    Was the decision to go to war a poor one? Quite possibly? Should Bush have been more considerate as to the quality of the intel, I won’t argue against that. But why not just argue that point, it’s a valid one. Why do democrats also have to turn it into a malicious, intentional effort to delude Americans when the reality is that the Bush admin just showed poor judgement. Isn’t poor judgement enough of an indictment?

    And let me point out that this article was talking about the Saddam/911 connection as well as many other Democrat platform lies. Notice that the MSNBC article does not claim that Bush ever tried to make a false Saddam and 9/11 connection. Seems if that common dem charge were true, they’d have mentioned it here, no?

    The fact that the lefties on this board have managed to respond to everything BUT the points raised in the article (such as my views, or the validity of my opinions, the lenght of the article, that it’s a straw man, WMDs and poll numbers showing a poorly informed public), it’s clear you don’t have a real rebuttal. When anyone is ready to actually discuss the issues I’ve raised I will be here ready to have an actual discourse.

  • The Obnoxious American

    I wonder how many statements were lies from Democrats, or were these people merely wrong?

    “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.” — Hillary Clinton, October 10, 2002

    “I am absolutely convinced that there are weapons…I saw evidence back in 1998 when we would see the inspectors being barred from gaining entry into a warehouse for three hours with trucks rolling up and then moving those trucks out.” — Clinton’s Secretary of Defense William Cohen in April of 2003

    “Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people.” — Tom Daschle in 1998

    “Saddam Hussein’s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    “The debate over Iraq is not about politics. It is about national security. It should be clear that our national security requires Congress to send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” — John Edwards, Oct 10, 2002

    “I share the administration’s goals in dealing with Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction.” — Dick Gephardt in September of 2002

    “Iraq does pose a serious threat to the stability of the Persian Gulf and we should organize an international coalition to eliminate his access to weapons of mass destruction. Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to completely deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.” — Al Gore, 2002

    “We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction.” — Bob Graham, December 2002

    “Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.” — Jim Jeffords, October 8, 2002

    “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” — Ted Kennedy, September 27, 2002

    “There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein’s regime is a serious danger, that he is a tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. He must be disarmed.” — Ted Kennedy, Sept 27, 2002

    “I will be voting to give the president of the United States the authority to use force – if necessary – to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.” — John F. Kerry, Oct 2002

    Oh wait, are you now going to tell me that Bush lied to them too? I know, Bush said there was a danger and these people believed it, without doing any due diligence of their own. Even though some referenced here get the same intel as the president, and the current Dem frontrunner’s husband actually dropped a few bombs of his own on Iraq.

    This article isn’t even about Iraq and WMDs. Keep on trying to cloud the issue so you don’t have to answer to the valid points made in the article.

  • Bear in mind, that in the wake of 9/11, not a whole lot of scrutiny was being placed on the blanket statements of the government by the media. The Bush adminstration got a very nice “by” for an extended period of time.

    Neither was the Democratic party inclined to shoot themselves in the head politically in the post 9/11 period. None of them would dare for fear of being labeled unpatriotic. unAmerican etc. Instead they demonstrated what politicians of all stripes aptly demonstrate – they rolled with the majority and pandered for approval…in this case it was the old byline – “we are at war, we must support the president”.

    You can keep on gilding the outhouse as much as you please, parsing selective quotes but the reality is, and the overwhelming evidence from government documents, intelligence briefs and the after the fact media interviews, that the current adminstration deliberately exaggerated both the WMD intelligence and the claims of linkage between Al Quaeda, Bin Ladin and Iraq. In short – they cooked the books and leveraged it for political and propaganda advantage.

    This may not change the fundamental proposition of your article – that the Dems are liars (and you can probably add political cowards to that as well) – but you might have more mileage, credibility and substance in your claims if you actually dealt with the machinations of the current administration rather then giving them a cursory and shallow whitewash.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Sorry Deano, but there has been no shallow whitewash.

    Firstly, you can try to glide the outhouse yourself here (whatever that means), but you cannot deny the fact that Intel committee dems who had as much access as Bush did to the raw data, went along. Not just to appear unpatriotic, not for cowardice, but because they agreed that Saddam was bad. How do you explain Hillary’s hawkishness? Pure political play? Her husband agreed with Bush and bombed Iraq himself when he was president. So the main premise of your comment is wrong.

    More importantly, this article wasn’t about the case to go to war. In this and many articles, I don’t defend the administration at all in their decision or handling of the war, I even suggest that they made a mistake going to war, and are easily flummoxed.

    Are you suggesting that any article where I criticize the Dems, I should write a preface that derides the Bush administration in it’s decision to go to Iraq? Sure, if that was the topic of this article. But it’s not. I am way past talking about the decision to go to war, because we are already AT war.

    This article is about the future, not the past. 90% of the article talks about things that were said or done by democrats in the last 2 months as part of the 2008 campaign. The question facing us now is who do we trust in 2008, based on the issues and the platforms of the candidates.

    The point of this article is that the Dems throw lies around, blatant lies, such as the Hillary’s comments on the Assault Weapons Ban, economic stimulus, and Universal Healthcare.

    No one has so far refuted any of the items in this article.

  • The title and subhead of the piece are what people are reacting to. The “substance” of the article is hard to respond to because the reasoning and the organization of the ideas are so jumbled and poor.

    Dishonest Dems
    — Why Democrats and truth don’t get along.

    The title succeeds in being provocative – but not in being honest. The article itself succeeds at neither.

  • All right, Obnox, let’s put you out of your misery and at least try to get a discussion started on one or two of the points you raised other than Iraq.

    I’m not going to take a position here but I do want to look at the meat of your article, which holds that Democrats are dishonest on the issues. Several of your points are good: the flannel coming out of the mouths of some liberal politicians is as exasperating to those of us who lean leftwards as it is to you. My personal theory is that liberalism worldwide is basically still reeling from Reaganomics/Thatcherism and is only just starting to find its footing again: it’s considered not safe – politically incorrect, to adopt a term which actually fits rather nicely – to have unconservative opinions, particularly on the economy. The Democrats, bluntly, need to grow some balls, as their transatlantic counterparts the Labour Party did under Blair.

    However, I do want to take issue with your view of Hillary Clinton and her healthcare plan. I don’t think she is being disingenuous here: she clearly believes such a plan can work or she wouldn’t have been pushing it for the last 10+ years. She says her plan would offer more choice and lower costs; you think it would result in the American medical industry losing its competitiveness. That’s not dishonesty on her part: it’s a disagreement on yours.

  • OA,

    The expression was “gilding the outhouse” – as in putting a layer of glitter/gold on something that manifestly is inappropriate to gild.

    I’ll note that if you don’t want anyone calling bullshit on your statements around Bush et al and their manipulation and dishonesty in managing the Iraq situation, Al Qaeda and the war on terror, then you shouldn’t heap two paragraphs devoted to how you never heard Bush connect the dots and it was all the lies and spin of the nefarious Dems near the start of your little screed . There is ample evidence supporting the administration manipulations in that particular situation. Recasting it as the Dem’s lies is just manifestly crap. If the Dems are guilty of anything, it was blatent political expediency for NOT actively opposing some of the tenuous connections that the admisnitration was making to justify the war.

    As for the remainder of your article, it may well be accurate (in all honesty, I don’t care and it sounds exactly the same as all the other partisan crap floating around the election) but in my opinion your nonsensical statements around Iraq near the beginning of the article tend to indicate to me that you probably are equally off on your other statements…in short, you don’t carry much credibility for the latter part of your argument as you tainted it with idiocy near the start.

  • The Obnoxious American

    Thanks Doc,

    And perhaps I agree that she really does believe that her healthcare plan will work. However, she cannot know what will happen, and it’s her statements on that front that I object to.

    There are similarities to her claims on healthcare, and the Bush admins claims of WMDs in Iraq – namely that the press and constituants have given each a free pass to say what they wanted on the issue. In a way, it’s the lack of any kind of real analysis of such campaign promises, and the simultaneous agreement with that platform by the party that is a form of dishonesty I object to.

    While you are right, that it’s a disagreement between the me and her platform that this would do all that is promised, claiming to know what would happen when moving an entire sector public, if not dishonest, is at least naive. But I really doubt Hillary is naive.

    BTW, Thanks for trying to bring the discussion above board!


    Another attempt at attacking the writer, the article ANYTHING but the substance. Jumbled eh? is that the excuse now for not reading it? It’s a long article, it covers lots of ground. But it’s not jumbled. Perhaps if I broke it up into 4 second soundbytes you’d enjoy it more? :>

  • The Obnoxious American


    Firstly, let me remind you that none other than Saddam himself had a gold toilet.

    As far as your point about bush “connecting the dots” – I’d like to see one quote where Bush said Saddam was involved in 9/11. This should be really simple. Why can’t anyone produce an actual quote that says that? Because it doesn’t exist. If you connected some dots to some other dots, that isn’t Bush’s fault.

    Moreover, I am not Bush’s defense attorney. I don’t agree with Bush on everything. I dislike the negative aura he’s given to the GOP and the wasted capital spent in Iraq. You won’t get me to defend his decision to go to war or the case he made. But if you try and pretend he said something he didn’t, or try to cast aspersions about the admin or myself for that matter, because you jumped to conclusions, be sure I will set the record straight on that one.

    I like your last paragraph, which is such a blatant cop out I cannot even respond. Sorry bud, better luck next time.

    I won’t respond

  • He had a what? Cool! Do you know what happened to it after the invasion? Is it in a museum somewhere? Can I bid for it on eBay?

  • OA,

    The point is, in stating your case against the Dems as liars, you dance down the same path of intellectual dishonesty that you fingerpoint at them for.

    If you have paid the slightest ounce of attention to the last six years of media coverage and can still say, with a straight face, that you don’t think and were never cognizant of the Bush adminstration’s efforts to push a linkage between Saddam and 9/11 in the eye’s of the public…well, basically that throws any
    credibility you have right out the proverbial window. You are either being partisan or stupid – take your pick.

    If you want a good summation of the admin’s linkage efforts, go read Thomas Ricks ‘Fiasco’ or Cobra II by Micahel Gordon. They have a pretty good documentation of the process and key communications leading up to the war. I’m not inclined to repeat it here.

    By the way, regarding quotes – I recognize that Bush didn’t explicitly state that Saddam was involved in 9/11. I’ll also note that he couldn’t – there was no evidence of any connection. The whole point is that the administration deliberately manufactured belief in the general public of a linkage between the two by repeatedly lumping the subjects together and creating connections between the subjects.

    It is generally the writer of the piece that should back up their assertions with evidence, not the reader. If your argument can’t hold water, it is an indicator that you need to work on your content.

  • The Obnoxious American

    I say it with a straight face because it’s true. For as long as I have been aware, I’ve paid very close attention to politics. You cannot produce a quote because he never said it.

    And for me, the logic of taking down Saddam had a lot more to do with the 12 year history of American sponsored UN resolutions asking Saddam to disarm following the gulf war. Add to that Saddam’s well documented support for terror. Add to that the fact that we had just been attacked by terrorists. There were arguably many more motivating issues for taking down Saddam than whether or not he just happened to be involved in 9/11.

    But I won’t debate whether it was a good idea to go into Iraq. Whether it was a good idea back in 2003 doesn’t matter, the mismanagement of the war, the ensuing cost has made it impossible to be worth the benefits of having the Iraq we have now. The only real question is what do we do now. And on that front, and back on topic, the Democrat’s position is also a lie. Compare whatever it is that Clinton or Obama is proposing to do about Iraq to what John McCain would do, it’s just no contest.

    You keep talking about my credibility but you pretty much admitted to not even reading my article past the 4th paragraph. Talk about intellectual dishonesty. This isn’t about me. I don’t care who wrote this article, the points made have merit, but let’s keep talking about whether Bush lied about Saddam and 9/11 even though we all admit he never said it.

  • The Obnoxious American


    I have to admit, it’s heresay, but I did a search on the web and could not come up with anything concrete. Stories abound from a gold toilet seat, gold handled toilet and a plain gold toilet. The guy did have access to several billion dollars, so he certainly could afford to be that silly. I just gotta think that on a cold night, it must be really uncomfortable.

  • Helping the poor (and the middle class) is not unrelated to helping the economy. It’s not just some nice afterthought. You’re talking about tens of millions of citizens.

    The Democratic Party won the presidency on the basis of the economy in 1932 and 1992, and probably also in 1960. The Republicans won the presidency on the basis of the economy in 1980. The economy is working against the Republicans politically this year. It’s hardly a one-party issue.

    “Security” has only been a winning Republican issue in the era since 1968. And the rhetoric by which the Republicans retained the White House and Congress in 2002 and 2004 is the very model of “dishonest discourse.” It was, in fact, quite despicable.

    In recent times, the left has feigned ignorance when it suited them.
    (Not one of the many words which follow this sentence contain any concrete examples “proving” this dumb thesis.)

    The truth is that all these manufactured “bushgates” prove that the Bush administration has made some really stupid, and perhaps ethical mistakes, nothing more.

    A truly preposterous sentence. Ethical mistakes and stupidity are acceptable coming from the White House? Those of us who dare to point these things out are “manufacturing scandal”? Can you honestly not see the outlandishness of what you write?

    So you’re not going to vote for the Democrats because of the squabbling about race and Reagan that was in the headlines lately. But wait. You already made it clear that you will never vote for a Democrat because you differ with them on almost all the issues. You offer examples of Democrats making reasonable statements which were used out of context by a rival candidate. Yet every campaign in history, Dem and GOP, has contained squabbles and skirmishes, many of them wrongheaded and minor. One assumes you won’t actually use them (certainly not the ones occurring on the GOP side) as the basis of your vote. So what, exactly, is your point?

    Omission of all of the facts is dishonesty. Selective recall is dishonesty.

    This would serve as excellent self-criticism if only that were its intent.

    Is your long-winded attack on banning assault weapons actually relevant to the campaign? How many assault rifles do you own or want to own? Why use so much space on it? Besides, your own selective use of statistics does not prove that HRC or anyone “lied.”

    You mock HRC’s economic stimulus plan, but you are silent on GW Bush’s and Mitt Romney’s even larger plans. All three of these plans may be more smoke and mirrors than real policy, but how does singling out one of them prove any kind of dishonesty? You simply make an assertion.

    Then we come to your prize jewel, the central thesis that took us a long time to reach:
    That the Democratic party has been able to continue pushing this fallacy that tax cuts are bad, but government spending programs and assistance programs for the poor are good economic policy, is one of the most egregious examples of political dishonesty in modern times. The only thing more perplexing to me is the hordes of Americans who willingly vote for people running on this platform.

    No politician likes to raise taxes, despite the fact that you find it fun to pretend so. It is possible to have a disagreement on the specifics of the Bush tax cuts, is it not, without claiming that all tax cuts are bad. Whether the Bush cuts really aided the economy, whether they really favor the extremely wealthy, whether extending them is “essential” or merely politically expedient – these are all questions worth exploring. So explore them, don’t just shout them down.

    I don’t agree with your thesis about Dems and taxes; it is factually wrong; and the assertion that the Democratic position is based on dishonesty remains 100% unproven by you.

    Your assessment of HRC’s health proposals – very similar to the programs from the GOP governor of California and the former GOP governor of Massachusetts, now running for President – does nothing to prove dishonesty. You complain that we don’t know what changing the system would do. But you don’t go so far as to claim the current system is just fine. Do you? Maybe HRC is not the one being dishonest.

    Your “analysis” (a generous term) of the state of Iraq and Democratic proposals about it conveniently ignores two things: [1] Most people in the country want out – the Dem candidates are responding to public opinion, not just making up some evil surrender plan; and [2] Just how long do you want us to stay there? McCain’s “100 years, 1,000 years!”??

    As a rule, the GOP candidates have managed to avoid a dust-up akin to the racial warfare of Clinton-Obama, or the faux populism of Edwards-Obama.
    See: Multiple attacks on McCain’s immigration stand; Huckabee’s blatant use of religion against Romney in Iowa; Romney’s false attacks on McCain’s tax-cutting stances. And going back to the last Republican contest in 2000, do you remember what Bush did to McCain in SC?

    Much more importantly, on the issues there is much less spin on the right. You don’t have to parse words wondering where GOP pols stand. Even if you disagree with the GOP on issues such as abortion, gun control, or even the war in Iraq, the positions the candidates have taken are based on an observable logic, and it’s not masked in double-speak.

    It’s hard not to laugh at this: think of Giuliani and Romney on abortion, gay rights, gun control. That’s quite a lot of double-speak already.

    All politicians speak double. It’s part of the job description. This is not a great thing. But are you going to pretend the Democrats have a monopoly on it? Remove the spin, and your article reads:

    Hillary stinks, as do all Democrats. I’m voting for McCain.

    Now that’s honesty.

  • The Obnoxious American


    Helping the poor does not help the economy. It’s a zero sum game. The old saying about giving a man a fish applies, and I don’t see programs such as mortgage bailouts or green collar jobs as teaching anyone to fish. It sounds like a lot of government meddling in private sector business. I do support programs that help people go to college, and the like. However these types of programs are long term and do not have a near immediate benefit of a tax cut or even a rate cut.

    While the New Deal might have made a lot of sense back in it’s day, it isn’t needed now. This country is a capitalist society – the goal isn’t to rely more on the government for our needs. Much more importantly, the world is a capitalist world. In order to function in this global economy, we have to focus on what helps business.

    If you want to help the poor, cut taxes on small business and make it attractive for them to hire more people. Forcing a min wage on small businesses doesn’t get this done – in fact, it cost people jobs. Cut corporate taxes so that it’s more attractive to own and operate a business in America, rather than tax and regulate to the point where people move their headquaters to the UK or elsewhere.

    Unfortunately when the Democrat front runners are running around with words like “CEO pay” and “tax increases for the rich” leaking out of their mouth, small and large business gets turned off. The fact of the matter is in a global economy, our government needs business. Not the other way around. The reality is that we are competing with other countries in the world where it is more favorable to do business. What’s Hillary’s answer to that?

    you say: “”Security” has only been a winning Republican issue in the era since 1968. And the rhetoric by which the Republicans retained the White House and Congress in 2002 and 2004 is the very model of “dishonest discourse.” It was, in fact, quite despicable.”

    I was ready to respond, but you didn’t cite any examples. So not really sure what you are talking about. I do know, that we have not been attacked since 9/11 with Bush at the helm. When Dems talk about negotiations with Iran, as if that has never been thought of or tried before, as their way of ensuring security, that’s despicable.

    As far as the “Bush Gates”, these were not crimes. That you took the bait and exemplified exactly what I was talking about in the article is actually quite amusing to me.

    It’s not a crime for a president to fire attorney generals. No allegation was ever made that justice was not carried out because of the firings. In fact, weren’t they fired because they didn’t want to investigate dem instigated voter fraud?

    What happened with Valerie Plame, well let me just say that if her CIA cover was so important, why was she and her husband talking to the press? And if I remember, the president and vp have the right to declassify information should they wish. Maybe they had an axe to grind. Are you really trying to say the same kind of thing never happened during the clinton presidency? Please, there was no crime here. Arguably an ethical question, but not one that I really care about. What happened to Libby was a disgrace of justice. Bear in mind, no one has ever made the allegation that this “leak” put any CIA operative or operation in danger.

    As far as my never voting for Dems. No, not the way they’ve been carrying themselves in the last few years. I agree with them on many issues. Socially, I tend to lean left. On the hard issues of taxes, economy, security, I find nothing at all in common with the Dems. Why are we talking about me again?

    I don’t know how you can say that Hillary’s comments about the AWB are truthful, especially in light of the facts I’ve detailed. Why is it important? Because the AWB is nonsense legislation, why don’t we focus on trying to stop people from killing each other, than whether they have this or that weapon to do it with. Fact is, there is a reason why there is a second ammendment. I find it curious that you would be so quick to relinquish said rights.

    Yes, there Arnold and Mitt both have health plans similar to HRC. But don’t for a second pretend that Arnold has been holding up the ideals of the GOP, he hasn’t and no one really considers him a Republican anymore. As far as mitt, I don’t support him or his plan and I am happy, albiet surprised that McCain has overtaken him, for now.

    “See: Multiple attacks on McCain’s immigration stand; Huckabee’s blatant use of religion against Romney in Iowa; Romney’s false attacks on McCain’s tax-cutting stances. And going back to the last Republican contest in 2000, do you remember what Bush did to McCain in SC?”

    How is any of that like claiming that someone said something racist when they did not. At least the GOP is arguing about issues. As far as huckabee and romney, I agree, that was a disgrace. To hell with the both of them. I would be very sad if either won the GOP primary because the GOP would likely lose the Presidency to the Dems.

    “It’s hard not to laugh at this: think of Giuliani and Romney on abortion, gay rights, gun control. That’s quite a lot of double-speak already.”

    That the GOP is willing to consider front runner’s who don’t follow the party platform on gun rights and abortion is actually something I am proud of. Better to be open to alternate points of view than the taboo-izing of any stance that is out of line with DNC doctrine. Please, that you consider that a bad thing speaks volumes my friend.

    Given that the title of the article is “Dishonest Dems” it’s not so far fetched to sum it up as “Dems suck” – but if I just said that, and didn’t make the case to suppor that claim, then we’d have nothing to talk about.