Ads to be released by RNC show Dems seemingly agreeing with Iraq war....

[emdee]

One example they use is this quote by Ted Kennedy, " Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us."

Now, read it in context: http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/02/09/2002927718.html

This is the job our media fail to do. As these ads come out, it'll be difficult but I'm thinking about keeping copies of Kennedy and Kerry's pre-invasion speeches on hand at all times.

emdee

[The_Casual_Observer]

1. What are these ads supposed to do? Are they going to make the

Iraq war go away? That whole thing is stupid.

[tulsakatz]

5. it's just their usual tactic..........

........blame it on the Democrats!!

[cantstandbush]

27. That's ok. They agreed to what the President said. They didn't ask for

war.

[rodeodance]

2. drats--they have enough $$ to spend on ads!!

[TexasLawyer]

23. maybe it's some of the billions

of dollars that "went missing" in Iraq. What a cornucopia this war has been for the RNC and their allies.

[ewagner]

3. Where did you get the info

about the RNC Ads?

Nice catch btw :applause:

[emdee]

24. From an article in the U.S. News and World Report....

called Hitting Back at War Critics, page 18, dated Nov 21, 2005

"Round 2 of the administration's attack on Dems who backed the war in Iraq but now oppose it comes this week when the RNC releases a video of big-shot Dems warning of Iraq's WMD....."

emdee

[Zynx]

4. "See! The Democrats are morons too!"

That's basically what their line of attack is. Ours should be, "We screwed up. We trusted him. Is it so wrong to think you can trust your government?"

[aquart]

9. "Is it so wrong to think you can trust your President?"

It's disingenuous, but keep saying it.

We don't want people distrusting GOVERNMENT. We want them distrusting the BUSH administration.

And we SHOULD be able to trust our President.

[funflower]

6. Democrats didn't know the evidence for WMD was forged. Forged!!!

This isn't just about a bad decision. It's about misleading the country through criminal falsification of evidence.

[tulsakatz]

10. true........

.....anytime someone tells me that Democrats voted for it, I tell them that doesn't matter because they voted based on false intelligence!

And now Bush is trying to say that Democrats in Congress had the same info he had............which is also a lie. How many times have we heard Democrats ask for paperwork on issue after issue, only to be denied from the White House. But now we are to believe that they willingly released all documents to Congress before the war?

[funflower]

13. Didn't the dems vote not "for the war" but to hand the decision over

to Bush? They were spineless, no doubt, but I think they basically tried to wash their hands of it while not out-and-out opposing the march to war.

[emdee]

25. I remember after the vote....

how upset Kerry and other Senators were upset because they voted to go to war *as a last resort* and Bush took it and ran right away.
emdee

[funflower]

67. True. But, of course, they had to have known what * would do.

I did.

[emdee]

69. It was very naive of them otherwise, I agree. n/t

n/t

[funflower]

70. I doubt Sens. Kennedy and Kerry (bless them) are naive.

[aquart]

7. This is going nuclear and they don't even know it.

Go ahead, future president whoever, ask for bipartisan support.

They never see the consequences. Like little children who believe that nobody exists who is out of sight.

[radio4progressives]

8. These are going to BACK FIRE big time if they pull this stunt.

And it's an easy one to knock down given a level playing field.

[July]

17. They're not getting anywhere with this stuff. Everyone's on to them now.

Also, it shows their desperation, and people can always smell that.

[mike_c]

11. they DID agree with the Iraq war-- at least many did....

Those who voted for the IWR. I'm so sick of seeing this spun by dem congress critters-- it won't be long before we hear "but we thought an invasion and occupation would be GOOD for Iraq!" :puke:

[Frances]

12. Does that green square mean

that you are a Green and not a Democrat?

[mike_c]

18. yep...

...I left the democratic party after nearly 30 voting years-- solid dem since 1976-- but I could not vote for a pro-war candidate in 2004, or for a party that embraced the war against Iraq. I'm green until the democratic party comes to its senses. Now that I've switched affiliations, I find that I really LIKE belonging to a political party where no one is apologetic about liberal values.

[karynnj]

19. Read Kerry's floor speech today

Note he strongly urged Bush not to invade on the eve of the invasion. There was a point to getting the inspectors in which is what he and others voted for. the IWR didn't give Bush backing to attack Iraq for any reason he chose it was for the UN resolutions on WMD. (the other thing is that as in Vietnam and Clinton's actions a CIC can command the troops - most of our wars have been undeclared.

[mike_c]

21. god I wish this dem myth/excuse would die....

Iraq agreed to resumption of FULL, UNCONDITIONAL inspections BEFORE the IWR. The IWR was never needed to "get the inspectors back in." Furthermore, U.S. intel already knew that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed" and had known it for nearly a decade (Scott Ritter). They also knew that any remaining "stockpiles" of WMDs would be utterly useless by fall 2002. I'm sorry, this excuse only has merit among the uninformed.

on edit: the corollary of this myth is: "well, Iraq had already agreed to unconditional inspections, but we couldn't trust Saddam." Of course, Saddam Hussein turned out to be the one telling the truth regarding his country's disarmament all along, not the U.S., so I think it's rather obvious that congressional leaders were better off trusting Saddam than their own president's administration.

[Frances]

20. Some of my best friends are greens

But why are you posting on this board? I would think you would prefer to post on a green board.

[mike_c]

22. I've been a member of this community since early 2002...

...and I was still a dem then. Besides, who wants to spend all their time in an echo chamber?

[Frances]

33. I don't know where you live

but I hear Repub politics all of the time. I look forward to coming to DU to hear Democratic voices.

I respect your right to join a party other than the Democratic party but I am uncomfortable hearing anti-Democratic statements on a board called Democratic Underground.

How would you feel if you heard anti-Green comments all day and then came to Green Underground only to hear all of the faults of your Green candidates?

[mike_c]

34. lol-- 'bro, I come HERE to hear anti-green comments....

Seriously, I hear you. I'm utterly opposed to certain policies that, unfortunately, dems are sometimes as responsible for as republicans. My beef isn't with dems specifically-- as I said, I've been a solid dem nearly all my life-- my complaint is with specific policies. The war against Iraq, first and foremost. The corporatization of U.S. political leadership. U.S. health care policy. Virtually everything else the republican party stands for. And so on. I'm a liberal to the bone. I'm 50 years old and I've spent my entire life helping to define the leftmost wing of the democratic party.

The point is that when I criticize dems it's not because they're dems-- I criticize leadership that I think is fundamentally wrong. I criticize EVERYONE who supported the war against Iraq, for example, and I will not give dems a pass. Nor would I give any green a pass for supporting the war, so if you can find one, rest assured that I will condemn their actions too.

on edit- in answer to your implied question, I live in Arcata, California (well, actually in nearby Blue Lake, but no one's heard of Blue Lake), arguably one of the most liberal towns in America, in northern Humboldt County, probably one of the most liberal counties in America. Google it if you don't know it. I'm reasonably confident that I don't personally know any republicans. I know there are some around here, but they aren't very prominant. Local politics is overwhelmingly dominated by the democratic and green parties. My kinda town.

[Frances]

38. Thanks for your thoughtful answer

Now that you have explained where you live, I understand your point of view better.

I grew up in the deep South so I am sympathetic to votes that Dem politicians have to make that could cause them to lose an election. For example, Max Cleland, who I remember as a handsome 15-year-old lifeguard, lost 3 limbs in Vietnam. Yet the Repubs in Georgia ran a campaign ad showing him morphing into Osama simply because Max voted to let the airport screeners join a union.

Back when Bush I wanted to go to war, some Dems voted against Bush I because they remembered Vietnam. But most Americans saw that war as a great success and some Dems who voted against it paid a political price. I am sure that Dems in Congress remembered that situation very well and that they were afraid to take the chance that Saddam really did have serious weapons. Even I was convinced that Saddam probably had biological weapons and I was very suspicious of Bush II (and personally against the war for the reason that I thought it was foolish to stir up a hornet's nest if you didn't absolutely have to do so.)

At the present time, I live 6 miles from Santa Cruz, which is a liberal town. I expected that this town would be liberal too, but my neighborhood certainly is not. My little townhouse development had several Bush stickers but no Kerry ones. (I moved in right after the election.) I go to an exercise class at the senior center (I'm older than you are!) and I would guess that most of the people are Republicans. They certainly spout off a lot of anti-environment and other right wing talking points. Of course, the Republicans are the loud mouths. Some people don't say anything. Maybe they are Dems. I don't know.

[mike_c]

40. ironically, I too grew up in the deep south....

North Georgia.

[Frances]

53. I'm curious

Is the rest of your family still in north Georgia? Are they conservative or liberal?

My brothers moved to South Carolina. One has a W sticker on his pickup, while my other brother is a Bush supporter because he belongs to a very conservative branch of a mainline religion.

When I get discouraged with Democrats, I think of my brothers and I try to be patient because I know where the Democrats in the South are coming from. Do you cut these Democrats any slack?

[mike_c]

54. a mix of north georgia and virginia mostly...

...and yes, they're all VERY conservative, fundamentalist christians. Years ago they left the Southern Baptist Church because it was too liberal. I kid you not. (on edit-- the SBC has since become quite partisan, so their views might have changed.) I shared their background, so I have no explanation for my own rabid liberalism.

I think I'm less inclined than you to give southern democrats slack-- just as I won't acknowledge racism simply because it comes from a long cultural tradition, I don't have much patience with "moderate" dems who have one foot in the republican party, or who otherwise have "cultural" impediments to liberalism. And frankly, my real loyalty is to those liberal ideals, not to the party itself.

[Frances]

58. You are right that the Baptist church has changed

Jimmy Carter is making that point now.

Even though I was officially a Methodist, I spent a lot of Sunday evenings in the Baptist Church from the time I was 4 until I graduated from high school. (The Baptist Church had programs for young people that the Methodists didn't have & back in pre-TV and early TV days, going to BTU and GAs and Youth Choir were "fun" things to do.) At that time, the Baptists prided themselves on having an individual relationship with God. The Baptists would tell me that my parents had me baptized in the Methodist Church as an infant, but the Baptist religion was better because they didn't get baptized until they were old enough to make the decision for themselves. I also remember that when the Baptists got a new preacher they voted on him. We Methodists got our minister assigned by the Bishop.

I hate racism with all my heart, but once again I see shades of gray that I gather you don't see. For example, my mother hates Yankees and thinks "the blacks" caused the trouble at the first attempt to march across the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma. Yet when a black woman and her teenaged son moved next door to mother, she baked a cake and took it to them. She told them she hoped they would be as happy in the neighborhood as she had been. (Mother lived in a small village at the time and white people in the village were moving out into the country. Black people are starting to move into the houses the white people are selling.)

My mother is so old that she is losing her short term memory and doesn't vote, so I try to think of her baking that cake and not of her being against the Civil Rights Movement.

[mike_c]

60. yeah, that's the south I remember....

I was a child in Georgia during the civil rights movement. My family was (is) deeply racist-- and the older generations hated yankees with a passion and blamed them for all the social woes of the day-- but were simutaneously concerned about the welfare of the black woman who spent much of her adult life cleaning house for my grandmother (and caring for us kids), at least as they understood her welfare, which is to say in a apartheid sense. My family were lower middle class-- working folk with little education-- and were intolerant in the abstract but genteel in person. That's the contradiction of the old south, IMO, that the crackers utterly missed out on.

[Frances]

62. Intolerant in the abstract but genteel in person

You describe the South so well. I notice that my brothers and their families are very, very polite when they cross paths with African Americans and the African Americans they meet are equally polite. Yet each group votes for a different party.

It's ironic to me that my white relatives are voting for a party that hurts their economic interests!

[IndianaGreen]

36. Most Democratic voices opposed the war and IWR

then we have those who only hear the prowar DLC voices and consider them Democrats even though they are actually ideologically closer to Rockefeller Republicans.

How many names do you want to see on a future Iraq War Memorial?

[MrTriumph]

16. To an exent, I agree with Mike

We all knew Congress had NO history of oversight of this administration prior to the IWR.

Seems like the votes for the IWR could be seen as a blank check and regardless of party the votes for it were wrong.

[sandnsea]

42. Well never mind then

Everybody should shut up except the 5% most left faction of the country. Would that make you happy?

In Oct 2002, most people supported a course of action that would get inspectors into Iraq.

That is what Bush told the American people he was doing.

"Members of both political parties have worked together with the -- with members of my staff, to develop a statement that shows our determination and our desire to keep the peace."

“Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice.”

The vote was not the invasion. Democrats did not support lying to the American people about WMD in order to invade Iraq. They just didn't. That is just one more lie that George Bush has gotten away with, and you have been helping him tell that lie for two years.

[mike_c]

43. inspectors had already been readmitted to Iraq-- UNCONDITIONALLY....

But I think you already know that-- why do you keep repeating this tired old myth? I'd suggest you go back and look at what was known to be true and what was propaganda, but I think you know that, too. I don't understand what your real motives are in these discussions, sandnsea. I must admit to feeling a bit stalked. Anyway, for what it's worth:

Everybody should shut up except the 5% most left faction of the country. Would that make you happy?

What makes me happy isn't really the point, but if you must know, yes-- I think the leftmost wing of today's democratic party and the mainstream of the green party has mostly got it right. When much the rest of the country was hoodwinked by the administration's lies about Iraq-- and the CYA lies parroted by complict congress members-- we were not. I'm sorry if that chaps your ass, but frankly, we were right, and what you refer to as "most people" were simply deluded. I did not share your delusions then and I won't excuse them now.

In Oct 2002, most people supported a course of action that would get inspectors into Iraq.

Iraq agreed to unconditional inspections in September 2002, BEFORE the IWR vote was called. Dems who voted for the IWR and their apologists REALLY want to make this inconvenient truth go away, but like most truths, it keeps coming back. I won't even begin to describe the real history of the inspection process, and how the U.S. deceived its citizens into believing that Iraq was not cooperating. If you're really interested in the truth, I'd suggest Scott Ritter's most recent Democracy Now! interview as a good starting point. But in the end, there is no escaping that after 1992 or so, Saddam Hussein was the only participant in this charade who was really telling the truth about Iraq's disarmament. If you still believe ANYTHING the U.S. government said about the matter between 1992 and 2002, well..., I don't know what to tell you.

The vote was not the invasion. Democrats did not support lying to the American people about WMD in order to invade Iraq.

Right. I don't know about your experience, but one of MY democatic senators sent me a letter parroting the Bush administrations lies word for word in support of invading Iraq, to justify her IWR vote-- ALL of which have subsequently been exposed as lies. Now she parrots the line about bringing democracy to the middle east. Even if we have to kill them all to accomplish it.

[sandnsea]

44. Glad you're not in charge

Truly. You don't take any testimony in total, only cherry pick the part you want to believe to support what really is an anti-US attitude. Scott Ritter complained about BOTH the cooperation of the US and Iraq in the inspections process. As much as Bush played games, so did Saddam. If he hadn't played his own inspections game, this all could have been avoided. It is peculiar that you didn't trust Bush, but trusted Saddam completely. I don't think that would have been a wise approach either. What was known in 2002 is completely different than what was known in 2003, which is also completely different than what is known now. The denial of those facts is clearly driven by an animosity at US policy that is based in ideology. It is as dangerous as Bush ideology and is my motive for challenging it. If you didn't show up with this nonsense in Iraq war threads, I wouldn't be challenging you. It's called democracy, not stalking.

[mike_c]

51. hmmm-- are you confusing Bush and Clinton...?

Bush had relatively little history of interaction with the inspection process, so he didn't have many opportunities to "play games" with it other than to continue milking it for domestic politics. Inspections didn't resume until 2002. He had NO interactions with UNSCOM under Scott Ritter. That all happened during Clinton's presidency.

I really think you've not listened to Ritters more recent remarks. Seriously-- check out that Democracy Now! interview from a couple of weeks ago if you haven't heard it. He talks at some length about Iraqi cooperatation and U.S. manipulation. He says that Iraq tried to scam the inspectors until early 1992, then they essentially gave it up and began cooperating fully. He characterized their cooperation as "99.5 percent," with the remaining half percent all objections to U.S. espionage attempts that went beyond the weapons inspections.

As for what was known and when, I think you need to differentiate between the propaganda and the truth. Ritter also says that U.S. intel agencies-- he doesn't mention the CIA by name, I don't think, at least not in that interview-- knew "as early as 1992 and certainly by 1995" that Iraq was "fundamentally disarmed," but that the U.S. government reframed the disarmament question in such a way as to make proving it virtually impossible. THAT was both to avoid the political consequences of lifting sanctions while Saddam Hussein remained in power and for domestic consumption to justify continued harrassment of Iraq. In fact, Hussein was telling the truth and had complied fully with the disarmament mandate, but that was concealed from the American people and much of the rest of the world. Hussein was truthful-- and therefore worthy of trust, IMO-- while our government was piling lies upon lies and had been since 1992. So when you say "what was known in 2002 was different than what is known today" you're comparing propaganda to truth, but Ritter makes it clear that while you might have been taken in by the propaganda, at least some agencies of the U.S. government knew the truth, and they knew it well before 2002. You're incredulous that I trust Hussein's version more readily than the U.S. government's version of events between 1992 and 2002-- frankly, I'm incredulous that you don't, especially now that at least part of the truth has been revealed.

[sandnsea]

52. Riter's testimony in 1998

He changed his story. Because of that, anything he says will always be suspect, to me.

Saddam played his games with inspectors, whenever he played them. Bush played his games in 2002 and 2003. They both played them.

You say "the government was piling lies upon lies". No, not "our government". The Bush cabal. That's the whole point.

[mike_c]

56. now who's cherry picking...?

:evilgrin:

[sandnsea]

61. How so?

I'm not cherry picking anything. I know what was said and by who, and most importantly, WHEN.

[longship]

14. It is *very* dangerous to quote out of context.

In this video archive world, it is trivial to debunk this kind of thing.

Is this one of those "What was the RNC thinking?" moments?

[thebigidea]

26. and who will bother to debunk it?

Kennedy's huge number of allies in the liberal media that don't actually exist?

and if somebody like Keith O. does, how many will watch the debunking as opposed to how many will see the original ad?

name one example of quoting someone out of context being dangerous or blowing up in someone's face. it works!

[longship]

28. Glass half-empty, eh?

nt

[thebigidea]

30. so you back up your argument by just calling me a pessimist?

how about anything whatsoever to prove that it's somehow "dangerous" to take things out of context?

[longship]

32. No proof needed.

I don't have to prove an undisputed fact. Quoting out of context when the context is readily available *is* risky.

Now, you're arguing something else entirely. You are arguing that nobody's going to do anything about it.

I'll stand by my response: Glass half-empty, eh?

See this thread: www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=5360754&mesg_id=5360754

[Rose Siding]

15. Passing of the Buck, Disingenuous Edition

Even if the quote WERE in context, what's the argument?: "They were stupid, too! heh heh"?

It's a mess. Bush is responsible.

[texpatriot2004]

29. The more they push this sorry excuse, the more it will reveal how

info selectively withheld from the Dems.

[FrenchieCat]

31. You mean they are gonna take Dems words out of context?

[tom22]

35. BUSH LIED!

PEOPLE DIED! Is anyone out there keeping count?

[BigYawn]

37. The real mistake is in calling Bush a LIAR

Now he and the repugs can smear us with Bill Clinton,
John Kerry and the other democratic leaders on recorded
video saying they also were convinced Saddam had WMD's.

The smart approach would be to COME CLEAN, and declare
that Bush did not lie, but that we were ALL wrong about
WMD's, and now is the time to admit the blunder of attacking
Iraq and withdraw troops IMMEDIATELY based on errors by
intelligence services.

Bush is just a lame duck. It does no good attacking him as
a liar. Now he will throw back speeches by our own leaders
and rub our faces in it. What is more important is that
the bloodshed be stopped immediately.

[emdee]

39. I disagree - he is a liar....

research the quotes he uses. They are taken out of context. I remember well all of the skepticism as Bush rushed into war before the ink dried after promising that war would be a last resort. He is a liar.
emdee

[BigYawn]

41. I know he is a liar, I am just questioning the strategy of calling him a

liar. It is causing this food fight, and the bloodshed
will continue. I just want everybody to admit mistakes
were made and stop the bloodshed. Nothing will be gained
by calling names except more bloodshed.

[thebigidea]

49. which strategy? Again, find me one prominent Dem who did that.

[emdee]

68. Oh! I see. Sorry! n/t

n/t

[thebigidea]

48. but its perfectly ok for the WH to call Reid and Wilson liars?

its a big mistake NOT to use the word "liar." And I challenge you to find me ONE prominent Democrat who actually DID call Bush a LIAR, flatout. None of this crap about misstating and misspeaking.

[sendero]

66. My definition of a lie is..

... "a statement intended to create a false impression in the listener".

By that criteria, damn near every sentence Bush** utters is a lie.

No, not a lie like "I didn't steal that cookie", a lie like "the British report that Saddam has attempted to acquire uranium from Africa".

When Bush said that, he KNEW it wasn't really true but he can claim that he's just repeating what someone else said. He uses these devices to lie every time he speaks. He is in fact a fucking liar, and his lies are carefully planned and rehearsed to be "legally" not a lie even when in spirit they are nothing but lies.

[The Judged]

45. Simple solution!

Design a cartoon of Cheney and his cabal who are handing out "Cheney Intelligence Agency" intelligence flyer's and standing in front of a mountain of lies with "W" standing in front of them with his fingers crossed (behind his back) and face to face with a blindfolded Congress with their collective finger ready to press one of two "yes only" buttons as they vote to authorize the Iraq War.

Then get this image out and about so it becomes apparent to the world that W is not trusted by the American People when he speaks to them.

[annabanana]

46. What happens when you don't speak in soundbites...

What's missing?

"But I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the coalition. Just one year into the campaign against Al Qaeda, the Administration is shifting focus, resources, and energy to Iraq. The change in priority is coming before we have fully eliminated the threat from Al Qaeda, before we know whether Osama Bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we can be assured that the fragile post-Taliban government in Afghanistan will consolidate its authority"

snip

"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."

[OzarkDem]

47. Why this may work for R's

If anything was learned from the Reform Ohio Now initiative that failed recently, it was that anyone going up against R's to sway public opinion needs to have more than a large advertising budget. It takes a sustained effort to fully educate voters to overcome Repub spin.

The biggest weapon in combating the years of dis-information from the RNC is education. R's have been drilling in the same talking points and lies for over a decade now through daily barrage from the news media and hate radio. Dems have an uphill battle in trying to overcome the propaganda because they failed to develop a long term strategy to do their own voter education effort. Until we become comfortable with using education, pressure and persuasion to convince the public to support our policies and do so on a regular basis (not at the last minute before election day) R's will still win, regardless of their corruption.

[AtomicKitten]

50. I say the Dems release an ad about the 10/01 executive order

pulling the security clearance of 92 Senators. The truth is they did NOT see the same intelligence. The intel was cherry-picked.

Well, the truth, just between me and you here at DU, is that the Dems were weak, punk-ass bitches who allowed this administration to browbeat them into acquiescing. The Iraq Resolution vote was held right before the 2002 elections and the ones who voted "yes" were looking at their political futures, or as they imagined it would go. They were wrong.

Still 21 Senators said no and they have every right to push back.

I think the Dems better learn damn quick and in a hurry to play hardball. God knows they've got no stomach for it.

[demo dutch]

55. I say the Dems declare all out war on the RNC!!!!

[Jacobin]

57. I knew those dumbAss dems who went along with this

clusterfuck would regret it one day. I KNEW it.

Of course this is all spin and bullshit from the WH and the Dems thought the way the IWR was worded they could wriggle out if it went badly, but goddamnit they should have stood up to him then and they wouldn't be in this position now, ...and Iraqis wouldn't be getting fried by U.S. munitions

[bread_and_roses]

59. Kennedy: " There is clearly a threat from Iraq...clearly a danger"

The Dems brought this upon themselves. Most particularly those high-profile Dems who voted for the IRW. Kennedy, if I remember rightly, voted against it, but speeches like this gave credence to the lies the illegitimate Junta was telling.

And no, I don't believe that Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton - these very smart people in the very halls of power, with far greater access to and resources for information than any of the Millions around the world who DID NOT believe that Iraq was a threat - believed a word of it.

Our Allies didn't believe it. Iraq's own neighbors, with the most to fear from Iraq didn't believe it. If I was reading this, how could they not be aware of it? Yet they gave that miserable little Puppet and his tyrannous Handlers that vote.

Kennedy makes a good case against war in that speech, but he also says:
" We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction..." before he goes on to say (in the same paragraph):

"but information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferator of weapons of mass destruction."

I seriously don't understand these guys. I work on campaign literature. Before we finish a piece, one of the things we do is to go over it carefully to make sure that NOTHING that we say can be used to reinforce our opponents points. Because they will so use it.

I am afraid that a campaign as described could be very effective. It's simple and clear - or seems so. Most people don't have the time or the inclination to read endlessly. And those remarks of Kennedy's are strong, clear statements. No doubt they've found other strong, clear statements from other Democrats - not to mention Gephard kissing the Impostor President, etc. What will people remember? Kerry's careful parsing or a statement like "clearly a danger?"

(edit for spelling)

[desi826]

64. Still...

they aren't arguing that they didn't agree; they did.
They are saying that they did so because Bush duped them into it.

The ads don't address this argument.

Nor do the Bushies want to get into this aspect of the argument because their is ample evidence that he did. The NYtimes and WaPo is writing about it everyday.

Remember what started this: it was when Reid found out that Bush relied on info about WMDs from a man that the CIA told him was a liar and not to believe him, much less to run with his info like it was the truth.
This is when they shut down the Senate.

Also, 50% of the American public already believed that Bush lied us into Iraq for about a year now. WAY before the Dems started this. I doubt those ads are going to effect them.
Des

[bread_and_roses]

65. I do hope that you are right. But remember the wolf ad?

In a just world, those Dems who participated in promulgating this war crime would lose their seats to more honest Democrats. But since we don't live in a just world, and I have to wish instead that the ALL the blame falls where it is most deserved, on that gollem creature in the WH, his Masters, and their Party.

I remember that when I finally saw it I laughed. How on earth, I thought, could they think that people will see WOLVES - those creatures which are practically emblamatic of the pristine environment, creatures one sees on millions of calandars, t-shirts, mousepads, posters - as TERRORISTS? I thought it was a ludicrous concept.

But later, I read that the ad was very effective in those States where it was played and played and played.

So I do really hope that you are correct, and that most people don't give the Insane Mouthpiece any credence or allow HIS lies and crimes to reinforce their already willing belief that it doesn't matter who they vote for - "they're all crooks and liars." (Something I regularly hear door-to-door when I'm trying to GOTV.)

[ComerPerro]

63. OMG, that is just bullshit. This is what I hated about all the "flip-flop"

They knew they were lying, they knew they were telling half truths, and most of all they knew that they were just as guilty of "flip-flopping" as they claimed Kerry was.

And now they are doing the same shit to Kennedy.

And they will get away with it!

The GOP really pulled a fantastic scam when they managed to convince the media that fact-checking indicated bias.