Tuesday, March 13, 2007

In Their Own Words

Here is a video for your information.

Now you can see and hear their voices, not just read the text and use it for spin purposes. Please note that a few of these snippets were before Bush supposedly trumped up the intelligence reports. That is why I can place the label of hypocrite on anyone of these people that currently try to rewrite the history of this war.

Whether one agrees with this war or not, this should serve as a reminder that this was/is not a GOP war.

This is primarily why I am so mad at the Democrats right now. Dems like David Obey, who was the victim of some shenanigans by leftist organizations recently, didn't vote for the war. Therefore, I feel they have a right to bitch about why we went to war. But not these Dems in the video. Although, they have a right to complain about the way the war has been handled, they are part of the reason we are there now. And to keep up this BS game of "we were misled by the Bush administration", is not flying here at PYY.

There is nothing the left can do to refute this, there is no amount of spin that intelligent people will accept as an excuse. This is in their own words.

Were they lying then? Or are they lying now? Whichever you pick, it still means they have lied. So, before the Dems accuse this President of one more lie, take a good look at these people. This is the power base of the Democratic Party that now demonizes people that fail to fall lock-step with their views. Take a real close look ( that is, if you have the courage to do so).

Hat Tips: Eclipse Ramblings and Pat Dollard


Greg said...

They were right then, and they are wrong now. They have changed their mind b/c (1) they have little resolve and (2) they know how to read opinion polls.

Anonim said...

They (along with Bush and his administration) were wrong then (dragged by Chalabi's kind of sneaky traders of their own interests), and some of them may be right now. Changing your mind when such is due in the face of evidence is a virtue. If this is about not demonizing the president beyond proportion, that's a different matter; you've got a point there.

LASunsett said...


//If this is about not demonizing the president beyond proportion, that's a different matter; you've got a point there.//

On 9/11, Democrats and Republicans alike were attacked.

In the matter of being duped by Chalabi (and even Saddam, himself) as to whether or not there were WMDs, the same holds true. Both the Dems and the GOP were misled, both read the intelligence reports, both drew the same conclusions. As a result of that, members of both parties deemed it appropriate to roll the dice, and go in.

It's not about changing one's mind, here. It's about holding one side to a higher level of accountability than the other for the same mistake. It's also about one side minimizing their own mistakes, in the face of holding the other side's feet to the fire.

I agree with you on the virtue of openly admitting one was wrong and shouldn't have done a certain thing, but there cannot be two standards, for two different parties.

As always your view is appreciated, sir. Thank you.

Anonim said...

"Changing minds" was something Greg brought up.

On the other hand, you've got to give a pass to the nature of the beast here. The opposition party (that is not in power) always, everywhere tends to blame the other that reigns. The fact is, the Congress collectively failed their "check and balance" duty in the name of defering to the executive (they overdid it; maybe they're trying to compensate now). The Bush administration also cannot be whitewashed as being duped simply. There is at least a group in there (to me, represented by Cheney) that is quite dark, scheming, dangerous adventurers, ... however it may be put. I simply don't trust them. (Just how I feel; not that I think you didn't know.)

Also, you likened it to "your house being on fire," and asked: do you investigate the cause, or hasten to put the fire out. First, is your house on fire? Secondly, don't you want to use a different fire suppressant depending on the cause? Plain water won't quite extinguish burning fuel...

Greg said...

You guys make some good points, and so let me amend my post slightly. I have no problem with people who think the best possible solution now is to leave Iraq, though I disagree with those people.

However, I have a real problem with those who now want to say "the President lied & thousands died." If he lied, then so did all the Democrats who approved the war resolution.

Anonim said...

LA, off-topic, but you've shown interest in Turkish-Kurdish affairs. So just bringing two interesting articles to your and your readers' attention. (Excerpts in italics are random; not trying to make a point).

Nationalist rhetoric versus responsibility in the Kurdish question
by Cengiz Aktar
March 13, 2007, Turkish Daily News
Indeed, when U.S. forces started to face trouble in Iraq in August 2003, I wrote: “As for Turkey’s dreams of intervening in Iraq, one should know that the helpless U.S., who is ditching itself into the Iraqi quagmire more and more every day, will return home one day and the only ‘success story’ it will be able to present to its skeptical Western allies will be the achievements of Iraqi Kurds. The U.S. will never sacrifice that to Turkey’s fears.”

Enabling Kurdish Illusions: Independence isn't in the cards
by Michael Rubin
March 19, 2007, The Weekly Standard
Barzani and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan leader (and current Iraqi president) Jalal Talabani deserve credit for being tough negotiators. As Iraqi politicians debated the constitution, Barzani and Talabani won the right both to preserve their own party's militias and to veto the deployment of the Iraqi army into the Kurdish region.

But the State Department has been unwilling to meet toughness with toughness. By restricting freedom of movement on the basis of ethnicity, Kurdish authorities have violated the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. Foggy Bottom nonetheless refused to make U.S. aid conditional on better behavior of the Kurds. On June 23, 2004, U.S. authorities transferred $1.4 billion to Kurdish leaders. Less than a week after receiving that windfall, the Kurdistan Regional Government signed its own oil-prospecting agreement with the Norwegian company DNO, a slap in the face to Iraqi unity.


LASunsett said...

Thanks Anonim, I will give them a look, in a bit.

Always On Watch Two said...

Good find. I'll be posting this, with a hat-tip to you.

LASunsett said...


I got the first one read. Sounds like there's somewhat of a rift between the government and the military in Turkey. Is this a new development or has this been the case for awhile now?

LASunsett said...


Thank you. Please, feel free.

Anonim said...

LA, IMO, the present government is between a rock and a hard place so to speak (if the same cannot be said for all governments). On the one hand, you have the AKP (the governing party) with its Islamic background and credentials, and on the other, the military and the secular elite. While many see the military as the bulwark and the ultimate guarantee of unitary, secular nature of the country (and the constitution), the Muslim-turned-liberal-democrat AKP has IMO surpassed most previous governments with their reforms. Most of these reforms were made in the name of aligning with the EU, and skeptics have constantly questioned AKP's sincerity, saying some of the more important EU-inspired reforms worked essentially to the advantage of the AKP with its "hidden Islamic agenda" (like curbing the influence of the military vis-a-vis the civilian authority, or improving the human rights situation re: Muslim headscarf, Kurdish issue, etc.). Again IMO, none of this underlying mistrust, if you like, would have remained had the EU negotiations not been stalled. But, since the lead-up to the late 2006 crisis with the EU, there has been a growing backlash of sorts. Call it rising nationalism, or whatever, the fact of the matter is, the AKP has become a hostage to this popular reactionary atmosphere when the country is gearing up to elect a new president, in a couple of months really, for the coming seven years. There has been speculation that Erdogan, the AKP leader and prime minister, would get himself elected to this symbolic but still quite significant post (which he can do given the parliamentary arithmetic). Some see this as the last straw in that Muslim AKP in the government and Muslim Erdogan in the president's office would precipitate the end of secularism. Of course, read Muslim as crypto-Islamist, otherwise Turkey is 99% Muslim. Non-sense for the most part, but some of the fearful are cheering up to the military, just in case.

One other thing, against this picture, is that our military was used to talking (certainly too much by Western standards; let alone the 2.5 coups they pulled in the past). During the EU honeymoon phase, they were silent for the most part; but they started talking again. The new Chief of Staff has reportedly spoken in conflict with the Foreign Minister during their visit to Washington D.C. just a couple of weeks ago. The meat of the conflict was apparently about the Northern Iraqi Kurds, which is what that TDN article draws upon.

So there is a rift. It's not new. It revolves around the unitary/secular state character (or the fear that such is under threat). There are deeper, historical roots for this civilian-military tug of war, which is beyond the scope of this answer. Also, the Turkish military is not as backward or anti-democratic a force as some critics would have us believe; they too have legitimate points, which is again beyond my scope here.

LASunsett said...

Thanks Anonim for taking the time to answer my question. Like I have said before, the American media doesn't cover Turkey as much as other countries, unless it's something bigger than everyday internal politics.

Anonim said...

You bet.

By the way, the BBC documentary about global warming (that L'Amerloque brought up) was interesting. I don't know about the actual science, but I found it compelling in regards to politization of the issue (credited in good part to Margaret Tatcher (sp?); interesting, isn't it?) and the research funding phenomenon.

LASunsett said...


//By the way, the BBC documentary about global warming (that L'Amerloque brought up) was interesting.//

I am watching it in increments and am about a third of the way through. I am too hyperactive to sit still at a computer desk for an hour straight. Even when I am writing a long post, I am up and down a lot. (Some of that is due the over-assignment of duties, by my wife)

Anonim said...

Here is more to increment your way through (I will). Finally, someone put Al Gore's film on YouTube (just today):

An Inconvenient Truth 1/9

The following parts are under "more from this user" of course. Let's see if the producing company will assert their copy-rights. If they do, they're genuine (it's not a swindle). If they don't, they're not (it is propaganda). How is that for a truth test?