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.
Not 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.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - handyguy
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.
2 - Dave Nalle
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.
Dave
3 - 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?
OVER-ALL DEM GOP IND
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.
4 - Dave Nalle
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.
Dave
5 - 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!
6 - 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.
7 - 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.
BUT
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.
8 - handyguy
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.
9 - 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.
10 - 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.
11 - 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.
12 - Dr Dreadful
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.
13 - The Obnoxious American
REMF,
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.
14 - Winston Apple
“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.
15 - 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.
16 - The Obnoxious American
Winston,
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.
Bliffle,
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.
17 - Winston Apple
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.
18 - 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."
19 - 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.
20 - Mark E
Yes, Saddam was connected to al Qaeda.
Take a look at his men admitting it...
21 - Dr Dreadful
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...?
[/irony]
22 - The Obnoxious American
REMF,
For once, I could not agree with you more.
Winston,
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.
23 - Dr Dreadful
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.
24 - The Obnoxious American
George,
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%
Doc,
Lolll!
Can we talk about the other "Platform Issues" I raised also? pretty please? I am dying to talk about the AWB.
25 - 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".