My column is back and better than ever

[shmokes]

This Monday's column is up!  Check it out   In this one you'll get to see me take Democrats to task instead of Republicans -- specifically those pansy asses who are complaining about being misled into war by George Bush.

...tell me that ain't getting you interested. How often do you hear something like that from a flaming liberal like me?

www.campkatrinablog.com (Jake Moses Mondays)

[ChadTower]

You may also recall that my mother, Commissioner Joni Eastley, is an elected official in Nye County and chairman of the county's Brothel Board.

[shmokes]

Nope...that's the mother of the guy who runs the website.  Many people may not be aware of the fact that in Nevada (except Clark County, where Las Vegas is) prostitution is legal and there are many legal Brothels (aka whorehouses) in the state.

To see my column you'll have to scroll down, or click the archive link under my picture "Jake Moses Mondays" on the left side of the page.

[ChadTower]

Yeah, I read about half of it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well, if I had to take a more extremist view than I already do, I'd agree with the sentiment that all those who voted for the war should be out on their asses.

However, I don't think it's as simple as that.

Not that I want to be in a position to defend them, but the fact remains that members of Congress DID NOT see the same intelligence as the Bush admin, and in fact, dissenting intel was actually KEPT from them.

So as much as I want a shiny, happy, idealistic Congress - the argument as it's being hashed out really amounts to, "F*ck the Dems, they trusted the President!"...and unfortunately, I don't see how our Democracy would function if that trust wasn't implicit in the decision making process. It's unfortunate that the Bush admin violated that trust, since, in the future, a president may honestly be making the case for war (a necessary war) and we'll find a Congress unwilling to act due to "Boy who cried Wolf" syndrome.

Let me be clear: I've never supported the war in Iraq and knew it to be a sham since the first murmurs (days after 9/11) that Muhammad Atta met an Iraqi official in Prague. It stunk, and it was obvious.

Ultimately, when I have a choice at the ballot box between someone who openly supported the war and someone who openly objected to it, it would certainly weigh on my vote (there'd be other considerations, I'm not a single-issue voter)...however, to simply call for the removal of everyone who voted for the "authorization to use force in diplomatic efforts fail" (NOT a vote for War, mind you)...is impractical and inoperative. It just won't happen.

This issue is one of the few things I try to be pragmatic about. Otherwise, I'd go insane and snipe people from the tops of buildings and we don't want that. (ed: Dear Secret Service - that is a joke!)

Lastly, you state members of Congress "never were misled; their constituents were." Well, they are elected by those constituents in order to represent those constituents. Howard Dean found it easier to dissent on the war because his constituents, by-and-large, objected to it. How would our system function if Congresspeople simply voted their conscience, time and again...without consulting the people who hired them? Maybe this isn't the best argument, when War in the issue, but I think it'd be interesting to look how that factored in.

Saving one's ass, often amounts to serving the will of the people.



mrC

[ChadTower]

Many people may not be aware of the fact that in Nevada (except Clark County, where Las Vegas is) prostitution is legal and there are many legal Brothels (aka whorehouses) in the

It should be like this in most places, really.  Seems to work out well there.

[patrickl]

Nice take on the issue, but personally I would say that the senators were misled also. Weren't they fed the same falsified CIA intel as the public was?

*weird typing errors fixed

[ChadTower]

Erm, no, the Senate has access to confidential intel that would never reach the public.

[fredster]

I like the Article Smokes.

MrC, exactly what intel were the Dems Missing actually?

[ChadTower]

See, it's a good thought.  But Kerry sits right on the Intelligence Committee, that supposedly sees everything.

He voted to go to war, not because he thought it was right, but because it was the politically expedient thing to do.

It is now the politically expedient thing to say stuff like "If I knew then what I know now I would not have voted to go to war."  Uh, yeah, you and everyone else, there, Kerry.

Of course, Kerry would not have known then even what he should have known then since he has the worst attendance ON the Intelligence Committee.

[shmokes]

Mr C, that's my point.  You knew it was a sham.  It was "obvious".  There ain't nothing you know about it that every single one of those Senators did not know.  Your Senators are, or certainly should be, as capable of smelling ---smurf-poop---, as you or me.  In fact, with all the extra information they have, and the fact that it is the job they are paid to do all day, every day, their noses should actually be considerably more sensitive and capable than yours or mine. 

And yes, it's reasonable for a Senator to take the views of the majority of his/her constituents into account as one factor that influences his/her vote.  But when the Senator knows, as well as you or I, that his constituent's views on the issue are based solely on a campaign of misinformation, as every one of those Senators knew, then the fact that they still go along with it, especially something as grave as sending a bunch of children with M-16's into another country to be killed, is reprehensible.. 

Sorry for the appeal to emotion, there, but it's just so effective that it's hard to resist sometimes.

Would I vote them out of office to have them replaced by a Republican?  No.  But I don't think anyone who votes like that deserves the spot.


By the way, check it out.  I'm kinda proud of this.   Real Clear Politics, a huge political website, chooses ten articles per day from around the internet that they will link to.  Oftentimes the list is filled with famous columnists.  My article got linked today.  Congratulations to me !   

[fredster]

Congratulations Smokes.

As far as the article, I did like it as I said. Nice opinion piece without too much crap being thrown.

I guess you look at it like that, if you assume that it was as you think, a sham from the upfront.

Or, just perhaps, they all agreed because the intel was just as reliable as any of our intel.  And everybody from top down thought what we had it nailed, and Saddam was sitting on weapons. That's a possiblity isn't it?  That it was in fact, an honest mistake?

I mean, the UN thought there were weapons so they sent people in to find them.  The UK thought there were weapons.  On and on and on.

Maybe they didn't think it was a "sham".  There is the great possiblity that what we saw was what happened.  Maybe all this "Bush Lied People Died" is a smoke screen or perhaps a way to politically capitalize on Bush's fall from grace?

Is that a possibility?

[ChadTower]

As well as the possibility that the weapons did and still do exist.  Not finding something is not proof of its nonexistance.

[shmokes]

Sure it's a possibility.  But it's a possibility that I'll win the lottery tomorrow.  The chances of it are just so low, however, that for all intents and purposes I can reasonably refer to it as a fact that I will be as poor tomorrow as I am today. 

For the record I was as suprised as the next guy when it turned out that Saddam had apparently destroyed all his WMDs just like he said.  I think just about everybody assumed that he had them, regardless of whether they supported the war.

[shmokes]

Oh...and thanks for the compliment Fredster.  But don't think this makes us friends.   

[ChadTower]

For the record I was as suprised as the next guy when it turned out that Saddam had apparently destroyed all his WMDs just like he said.

[shmokes]

There isn't any.  But there's lots of evidence.  We know for a fact that a lot of weapons were destroyed; it's documented. 

As to the rest, well, you're pretty much the last person holding out on weapons turning up.  Even President Bush has admitted that there aren't any.

Hiding weapons is one thing, but it would be quite a feat to hide all traces of the development and manufacturing of these weapons.  Especially considering that we now run the country and have scores of Iraqi scientists and high-ranking officials working for us now who worked under Saddam before.

Running with the, "Iraq may still have WMDs," at this point is just foolish.  Not to mention beside the point.  As I said, I always thought he had them anyway.

[ChadTower]

There isn't any.

[fredster]

We know for a fact that a lot of weapons were destroyed; it's documented.

[shmokes]

We know for a fact that a lot of weapons were destroyed; it's documented. 

It was also "documented" that he had them too, but about everybody at the time.

As I said, I always thought he had them anyway.

Yep, and so did everybody else.

It was a "sham" but everybody thought he had them. Huh. Kinda makes you wonder doesn't it?

It kinda makes me wonder about your reading comprehension skills.  In homage to one of my favorite characters I can answer your question quite well by saying: That depends on what your definition of "it" is.

[ChadTower]

It's all a philoshophical question, anyway... I mean, who on Earth possess more WMD than we do?

[fredster]

Well, it just seems to me that everybody on the intel committee came out and told us the intel was solid, at the time.

So "it" would be the issue of who believed what. From what I read, you admonished all the people who voted for the war and are now against it because they must have known the intel was false.

Maybe, just maybe, nobody lied. Maybe everybody really believed it and backed the idea, and the whole intel thing wasn't a "sham".

From what I read of it, you are assuming these people now decrying the war were liars then.  So that makes all these democrats liars? Am I missing something?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

MrC, exactly what intel were the Dems Missing actually?  What didn't they see that they saw later, exactly?

Good thing you read the link I provided.

But for starters, the Niger uranium fraud. The al-Libi fabrications. White House pressure on the CIA. All the Intel discrediting the Source (Curveball), who stovepiped the Aluminum Tubes story, the Al-Qaeda in Iraq story, etc. The, all the dissenting intel from CIA about Saddam's Nuclear capabilities.

ALL OF IT. None of the pre-war intelligence that Bush used to justify the war turned out to be true and there were PLENTY of people inside the intelligence agency telling him that. Problem is, they did not have the authority, themselves, to tell the rest of Congress. So basically, Congress was only allowed to see the evidence that supported the administration's claims. Convenient, huh?

If they have proven that, do they have enough evidence to impeach Bush for lying?  Do they have a strong enough case or are they just going to keep on saying that they do?

Yeah, like we're going to see impeachment trials in a Republican controlled House/Senate?! Get real. There is already enough evidence available to impeach this president, and I imagine it will become more evident to more and more of the country as time goes on.

Where's the evidence Bush did it on purpose ?

What, you mean because we don't have an audio tape of him saying, "I'm doing it on purpose!" we can't critically look at the evidence gathering process, and the marketing of this war and surmise that on our own?  Every day more and more Americans are beginning to feel that Bush mislead them, and I bet - without a doubt - that if the Dems win back Congress in '06, you will see Impeachment trials.


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Well, it just seems to me that everybody on the intel committee came out and told us the intel was solid, at the time.

Patently FALSE.

ONE WORD: PLAMEGATE

mrC

EDIT: I misread "committee" as "community"...I can't speak to who said what on the committee, but it really doesn't matter if dissenting opinion within the CIA was being stifled before it got to them, does it?

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Here's more evidence that Intel was falsely mischaracterized, and unsubstantiated claims were blatanly trumpeted by this Administration:

"The German intelligence officials responsible for one of the most important informants on Saddam Hussein's suspected weapons of mass destruction say that the Bush administration and the CIA repeatedly exaggerated his claims during the run-up to the war in Iraq."

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-curveball20nov20,0,1753730.story?page=1&coll=la-home-headlines (registration req'd)




mrC

[ChadTower]

Oh noes!  The Germans disagreed with our Intel!

Because as we all know, the United States must get approval from the Germans before we do something.

How do you falsely mischaracterize something?  Wouldn't that be to make it more accurate?

Seriously, dude, you're so anxious to throw around your hyperbole that you are chomping your own message.

[fredster]

Jah!

Chad, MrC is da man. He is so convincing.

You know, with all this OVERWHELMING linkage you have, why don't we just go ahead and press charges against the President?

After all, this intel looks good MrC, everybody thinks so!

[mr.Curmudgeon]

And you'll ignore the fact that it wasn't only the Germans, but an entire contigent of people within our own intel community. What the hell do you think the Plame case is about?

The Germans disagreed with our Intel

Disagreed? This isn't a matter of disagreeing. They had experience with one of the sole sources of intel used by this administration. They told the administration that his info wasn't reliable, and they used it anyway.

I mean, you can split hairs all you want, but it's obvious they knew the intel was bogus, but it was exactly what they needed.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

...OPERATION IGNORE IN FULL EFFECT...

What's your point exactly? That you're too apathetic to care?

We can't believe the government at all can we?

Yeah, no blood on your hands, eh?

EDIT: I wonder how long it'll be before you won't even admit to voting for Bush?


mrC

[ChadTower]

No, it is obvious they SAID the intel was bogus.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Anyhow, the point is, the statement that Congress shared the same intel as the President is false.  Simple as that. Bloviate and ignore all you want...


mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

It is all opinion now since the truth simply isn't possible to prove with the information that currently exists.

This is what the administration counted on. But I think we'll find that it won't matter in the court of public opinion.


mrC

[ChadTower]

The court of public opinion is moot during a second term.

[shmokes]

So that makes all these democrats liars? Am I missing something?

Um, yeah....that's basically the point I'm making in my article.  You might recall the last line of the article says something to the effect of, "Not a one of them deserves to be in office."  That might even be an exact quote.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

The court of public opinion is moot during a second term.

So the GOP is being dissolved? They didn't tie their wagon to Bush? Two Republican candidates up for re-election haven't come out and directly stated that they'd rather not have Bush campaign for them?

You really think that the GOP will get away from Bush's fiery wreck of a presidency unscathed? I don't.



mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

So that makes all these democrats liars? Am I missing something?

Um, yeah....that's basically the point I'm making in my article.  You might recall the last line of the article says something to the effect of, "Not a one of them deserves to be in office."  That might even be an exact quote.

So you lend no credence to the idea that the WH stymied intelligence counter to their goals, and that Congress may not have seen this evidence at all?

I mean, if you're going to hold all of Congress accountable, don't you want to resolve that issue first?


mrC

[shmokes]

I just hold them to a higher standard than you.  What intelligence were you privy to that gave you the ability to peg the WH line as ---That which is odiferous and causeth plants to grow---?  You referred to it as being "obvious" as a matter of fact.  The reason I don't have to resolve the fact that George Bush manipulated the evidence is that two wrongs don't make a right, and this particular wrong wasn't fooling anybody in Congress. 

Polling data to these guys it's like the word of god.  It's no coincidence that the "We never would have supported the war if we had only known..." comes at exactly the same time that polling shows that opposing the war is, for the first time, a popular position.

Don't get me wrong, I'm glad the Democrats are there right now, because the Republicans are so bad and the Democrats are the only ones powerful enough to get them out.  But these guys are slimy.  You seem to be forgiving pretty easily considering these were the only people in the world with the power to stop this war from happening, and instead the enabled it just the same as every rotten Republican senator/representative.

I cannot emphasize enough, if you or I had the power to see through Bush's ridiculous rationale for war, our Senators should have been able to do it.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

I just hold them to a higher standard than you.

I guess, if you consider it a lower standard to have lobbied (with a group of Vermont businessmen) for Dean as Chairman precisely because of his consistent anti-war stance. But don't sweat it, I've got my Dem shitlist...I just don't see any positive outcome in attacking them at the stage of the game. However, I plan to make my displeasure known in '06.

Right now, I see a bunch congressional Dems as the only thing standing between Iraq and Iran...or some sort of movement into Syria. They're being labeled traitors for speaking out now as it is, by the administration and it's supporters...and I don't see the benefit of piling on.

At some point, the only way to beat a group as unified and organized as the Republicans, is to become more unified and organized. There'll be a day of reckoning for a good majority of the hawkish Dems, of that, I am sure. But to paraphrase Rumsfeld, "You go to war with the politicians you have, not the ones you may wish you have."

What intelligence were you privy to that gave you the ability to peg the WH line as ---smurf-poop---?  You referred to it as being "obvious" as a matter of fact.  The reason I don't have to resolve the fact that George Bush manipulated the evidence is that two wrongs don't make a right, and this particular wrong wasn't fooling anybody in Congress. 

I see a disproportionate amount of responsibility between those who'd cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and those who'd choose to run, so I distribute my rage accordingly. The wrongs here aren't the same. But I don't expect you'll buy that.

Polling data to these guys it's like the word of god.  It's no coincidence that the "We never would have supported the war if we had only known..." comes at exactly the same time that polling shows that opposing the war is, for the first time, a popular position.

Not all. Dean has been on the correct side of this debacle since the beginning, and the grassroots made their voice known when the DNC was looking for a new chairman and through their influence, he got the job.

You seem to be forgiving pretty easily considering these were the only people in the world with the power to stop this war from happening, and instead the enabled it just the same as every rotten Republican senator/representative.

I'm not forgiving anything. I'm looking at the cards on the table and taking a nice bite of hot, steaming reality. The Dems certainly should have forced debate, pre-war. But in reality, the Republicans (at the time) held so much sway in public opinion, Dems would have been labeled traitors and effectively locked out of Congress. There dissent would probably not have stopped the war...Bush had already ramped up the war machine and sent it on it's way to Iraq, before the vote was ever taken to the floor. He wasn't calling them back.

I cannot emphasize enough, if you or I had the power to see through Bush's ridiculous rationale for war, our Senators should have been able to do it.

Maybe. But then again, our job - as citizens - is to be more skeptical than our representatives, thus the vote. They work for us. Sure they're expected to operate in that environment, but without oversight, you get the representation you deserve, so an America blinded by fear and hatred got a war based on such.

I'm really, mostly, disappointed in my fellow Americans. They're really the one's who let it happen.


mrC

[fredster]

Thanks for Clarifying that for me shmokes.  I just wanted to hear it again.

MrC, as far as I'm concerned, nothing has changed from Last November to this november. Nothing. I'd vote for Bush over Kerry and Bush over Gore AGAIN.

I still think the war was a good idea. The basic concept was good, the timing was excellent, and the execution was shock and awe. I'm not real happy about what's happend afterward. I think we could have been a little more efficient at wasting these terrorists and closing the borders. 

But otherwise, we are making progress.  We got Saddam out, we are setting up a democratic government in the middle of the middle east, and we have frightened Lybia and Egypt into being submissive to our demands.  The infrastructure is rebuilding, there is going to be a great country there when we are done.

You really think that the GOP will get away from Bush's fiery wreck of a presidency unscathed? I don't.

And you continue to underestimate the GOP. Keep on doing that MrC and you are not going to have a forehead left where you keep pounding it.

Bush has 3 years to get this right. That's a long time between now and then.  If he completes his Iraq mission well, we'll be figuring out how to carve his face on Rushmore.

[shmokes]

Thanks for Clarifying that for me shmokes.  I just wanted to hear it again.

Fredster, the extent of your thought process here is simply cute.  Don't you understand that in order for you to accept all this bad stuff I have to say about these congressional Democrats, you implicitly accept that Bush was deliberately misleading the American public and lying to Congress?

And while I think that Mr. C is sometimes inconsistent in the standards he holds politicians to based on their party affiliation, I think you're batshit crazy.  Do you have any idea what kind of trouble Bush is in?  His Job approval has hit 34%, just five points higher than Nixon's at the hight of Watergate.  He has republicans refusing offers that he campaign for them.  I don't know if you've noticed but Iraq is currently overrun by terrorists, where there were none before.  So much for the war on terror.  American soldiers, and Iraqi civilians are dying in large numbers on a daily basis.  We have no plan for Iraq.  Our plan is to just keep killing as many as we can, but they just keep coming.  To complicate matters Iraq is on the verge of civil war. 

Bush is currently overseas trying to bolster economic relations in China and the Iraq war is following him everywhere he goes.  At every stop he lashes out at the irresponsible, unpatriotic, war critics who are all but providing direct aid to the terrorists by letting them know that we are not united.

Top white house aides are under investigation/indictment for what could be defined as treason.  There's actually a debate going on in the country about whether we should be using torture.  Scott McClellan is on the virge of being fired retiring.  Just 40 percent of Americans call Bush honest and trustworthy now (ABC Poll).  55 percent say Bush intentionally misled the American public.

Far from carving his face on Mt. Rushmore, the next election will revolve around getting out of Iraq, and trust me...no republican will want to touch George W. Bush with a ten-foot pole.

Out of curiosity, considering you're not a man of faith, by what criteria do you come to the conclusion that Bush can turn Iraq around in three years?

And don't say shock and awe.  It's nothing more than a marketing buzzword (a really bad one).  Don't be a tool.