[halfstreet]

No matter how hard they try, the Dems just can't seem to avoid getting caught in one or more lies. When your entire platform is made up of them, I guess that's inevitable.

-----------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0511110833.asp

The Gullible Party

by Rich Lowry
November 11, 2005, 8:33 a.m.

If Bush lied, it stands to reason that Democrats who followed are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan.

Getting suckered usually is not a sign of good judgment. On the contrary, it's something to be embarrassed by. But Democrats are making the contention that they were told lies prior to the Iraq war, and believed them, central to their party's identity.

They are caught between their base's conviction that President Bush lied about Iraq and the fact that the cream of the party voted to authorize the war. Nearly every Democratic senator who has higher ambitions voted "yes" — Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and John Edwards. If Bush lied, it stands to reason that they are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan. They aren't statesmen; they're victims.

Some of the "aye" votes make this argument themselves. "He misled every one of us," Sen. Kerry charges. Sen. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, since retired, agrees: "We were misled." The talented New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who voted for the war in the House, explains, "If you believe that people like me and [Sens.] Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton drew the wrong conclusion at the time, well, that's true of a lot of Americans who were deceived by this president."

Surely, however, these Democrats don't rely on Bush exclusively for their information. In a demolition of the Bush-lied argument in the current issue of Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz recalls the other players who warned of Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Democrats could have consulted Bill Clinton, who had talked of the "threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program." They could have read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that maintained "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs." They could have asked the State Department, which believed Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. They could have listened to former U.N. weapons inspectors, a group of whom said in the presence of Iraq expert Kenneth Pollack in 2002 that they all believed Iraq had WMDs.

The Democratic "aye" votes contend they were further misled because they assumed that Bush would carry out the war competently. This is another way of saying that they thought it would go smoothly. But Bush said the war might be difficult. Democrats were free to believe this admonition and conclude that the war was too risky. Pro-war vote Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia complains that we thought "we could be welcomed as liberators," but it turns out that "we don't know anything about the Middle East." Did he believe in 2002 that we were soaked in a nuanced knowledge of the Middle East? And what precisely did Bush say to convince him of that?

When Democrats claim they were duped, they are sidestepping an inconvenient truth: Many of them supported the war for the same reasons as the president. We now know Saddam didn't have WMD stockpiles, but the only reason we know it with any certainty is that we crushed his regime. To pretend that, absent Bush's deceptions, everyone would have known with exactitude the reduced state of Saddam's weapons programs is juvenile and contemptible, especially from Democrats who want to shimmy their way out of their pro-war votes.

This is where the Howard Dean Democrats deserve a glimmer of admiration. They were against the war, period. Even when things seem to go well in Iraq, they hold firm. Dean was unswayed by the capture of Saddam two years ago. They don't sully themselves with after-the-fact rationalizations and evasions, and have the courage of their paranoid and wrongheaded convictions.

But their drumbeat of "Bush lied" puts their party's leaders in a bind. If Bush was a misleader, many top Democrats were misleadees. Dick Polman, a political reporter for Knight-Ridder News, reminds us that Republican George Romney damaged his presidential bid in 1968 by claiming he had been deceived by the military into supporting the Vietnam War. Voters weren't looking for a president who could, by his own account, be easily misled. Gullibility is not a leadership trait.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

[Loonakind]

What the hell's up with these Democrat hate threads?!

I think moderators need to put this in check. You don't need to share these freeper articles here. We know exactly where to go if we want to get a hold of Democrat hate articles.

There's no scandal or controversy in this thread, it's just stupid freeper hate. Nothing poignant to discuss really.

[Gypejeva]

What the hell's up with these Democrat hate threads?!

Hey that is how some people get off. Just like the Republican hate threads.

[fudelholf]

Hey that is how some people get off. Just like the Republican hate threads.

I do my own ranting, I don't post opinion pieces to do the ranting for me. I'm quite capable of expressing myself without having to post a new thread each time I want to rant. I can rant perfectly fine in a thread already provided. This stuff is just not needed.

[JohnImamadviser]

Yea I actually thought this kind of thing was now against the rules. I guess it depends on who you are as to whether the rules are to be enforced or not. After all what else can we surmise from some mods quick action against other cut and pasters and yet no action against this guy who sems to be making a career of it.

[slimsex]

What's wrong with pointing out how much Democrats hate? If you don't like it, tell your party to clean up its act.

Personally, I kinda like it. The Dems scream incessantly that "Bush lied!", while conveniently forgetting that their own President was saying the same things during his term, and enacting resolutions for "Regime change in Iraq" long before Bush ever showed up. When you point out these facts, they then scream that you hate them... when in fact it's been the opposite all along: They have been hating you, and the Bush administration, etc. And they apparently hate getting caught at it, even more.

Sorry, gents. You have brought all this upon yourselves. And it will keep coming your way as long as you keep up the crazy talk and wishful thinking that substitutes for reality in your world. And pretending that it's the rest of the world that hates you, rather than the other way around, is just more of the same.

But as I said, I don't mind it at all, personally. I hope you keep up the good work. The more wild accusations you throw, and smears and slime you try to spread, the more people will recognize you for what you plainly are. And the more elections you will continue to lose. And it's not because somebody "hates" you. They just don't want what you're selling. (Who would?)

Keep up the good work, lefties!

.

[Eltabaco]

Yet another worthless thread. I thought we already had one "Demoncrats are weasel" thread, now another one? I might have to start rating these threads one star.

[indentKew]

Yet another worthless thread. I thought we already had one "Democracts are weasel" thread, now another one? I might have to start rating these threads one star.

I would not even give it one star. Worthless thread indeed.

[kertUtire]

What the hell's up with these Democrat hate threads?!

I think moderators need to put this in check. You don't need to share these freeper articles here. We know exactly where to go if we want to get a hold of Democrat hate articles.

There's no scandal or controversy in this thread, it's just stupid freeper hate. Nothing poignant to discuss really.

You got to be kidding right?
At least it's a break from the pointless anti-American threads surrounding it...

[chuecaloversvv]

The GOP is the correctly known as the "Stupid Party."

The Democrats weren't gullible.

The Democrats were in on it. The same Jews who run the Bush administraiton also ran the Clinton adminstration. (Elliot Abbrams, Willial Kirstol, Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Perle, etc.) And, Democrat leaders, like Republican leaders, are also power-hungry psychopaths who like death. Clinton even lied America into war with Yugoslavia.

The Democrats, being unprincipled, didn't care whether it was true or not. War is popular (at least until it turns into a quagmire) and Democrats wanted the votes that supporting the war would bring. Most of them have never even read a bill that they have voted on.

The real are the American people who let a little flag waving turn them into fools. The absolute fools are those who still believe Bush told the truth... not that I really think anyone could still think Bush told the truth.

[OlgaBorovikovva]

Are you kidding me both party's are pretty braindead.

[Terinalo]

You got to be kidding right?
At least it's a break from the pointless anti-American threads surrounding it...

yeah, there we go. Keep it flowing. Now people that strongly disagree with Republicans are anti-American as though Republicans have been given authority on who is American and what view is considered American. Call it anti-Republican if you must call it something, but calling people anti-American is excessive and outright silly.

[Ad0i89Od]

yeah, there we go. Keep it flowing. Now people that strongly disagree with Republicans are anti-American as though Republicans have been given authority on who is American and what view is considered American. Call it anti-Republican if you must call it something, but calling people anti-American is excessive and outright silly.

I do believe he was talking about the anti-American threads started by one particular European.

[EbrsaRynleot]

yeah, there we go. Keep it flowing. Now people that strongly disagree with Republicans are anti-American as though Republicans have been given authority on who is American and what view is considered American. Call it anti-Republican if you must call it something, but calling people anti-American is excessive and outright silly.

You have a point there and there were assholes that said if you did not agree with the Republican party were Anti-American.

You see it is not a win win thing for anybody.

[hrthwhr]

My only problem was the cut and paste thing. We all know how the OP feels about the Democratic Party and that anyone who doesn't think like he does must be a closet Democrat. I am not in the least concerned about what he thinks or doesn't think, if that is actually part of the equation, but I believe we have a rule on simple cut and paste jobs.

Where oh where is Ben when you need him.

[espenijij]

There are more anit-Republican threads on this forum than anit-democrat. Suck it up.

[Gabbavnf]

It's kind of a nice change from all the Bush-bashing and hate-America threads and posts.

[elapicearpisp]

There are more anit-Republican threads on this forum than anit-democrat. Suck it up.

ANd if a bash Republican Party or bash Bush thread was started by a simple cut and paste I would be against that one as well.

[GaxyGroordrep]

This type of thread just encourages the other side to respond with the same kind of spam which just ends up degrading the forum even more.

[dAy2EWlg]

No matter how hard they try, the Dems just can't seem to avoid getting caught in one or more lies. When your entire platform is made up of them, I guess that's inevitable.

-----------------------------

http://www.nationalreview.com/lowry/...0511110833.asp

The Gullible Party

by Rich Lowry
November 11, 2005, 8:33 a.m.

If Bush lied, it stands to reason that Democrats who followed are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan.

Getting suckered usually is not a sign of good judgment. On the contrary, it's something to be embarrassed by. But Democrats are making the contention that they were told lies prior to the Iraq war, and believed them, central to their party's identity.

They are caught between their base's conviction that President Bush lied about Iraq and the fact that the cream of the party voted to authorize the war. Nearly every Democratic senator who has higher ambitions voted "yes" — Hillary Clinton, Evan Bayh, Joe Biden, John Kerry, and John Edwards. If Bush lied, it stands to reason that they are all naifs, foolishly drawn to the seductions of a charlatan. They aren't statesmen; they're victims.

Some of the "aye" votes make this argument themselves. "He misled every one of us," Sen. Kerry charges. Sen. Fritz Hollings of South Carolina, since retired, agrees: "We were misled." The talented New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who voted for the war in the House, explains, "If you believe that people like me and [Sens.] Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton drew the wrong conclusion at the time, well, that's true of a lot of Americans who were deceived by this president."

Surely, however, these Democrats don't rely on Bush exclusively for their information. In a demolition of the Bush-lied argument in the current issue of Commentary magazine, Norman Podhoretz recalls the other players who warned of Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Democrats could have consulted Bill Clinton, who had talked of the "threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program." They could have read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate that maintained "Iraq is continuing, and in some areas expanding, its chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programs." They could have asked the State Department, which believed Saddam had chemical and biological weapons. They could have listened to former U.N. weapons inspectors, a group of whom said in the presence of Iraq expert Kenneth Pollack in 2002 that they all believed Iraq had WMDs.

The Democratic "aye" votes contend they were further misled because they assumed that Bush would carry out the war competently. This is another way of saying that they thought it would go smoothly. But Bush said the war might be difficult. Democrats were free to believe this admonition and conclude that the war was too risky. Pro-war vote Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia complains that we thought "we could be welcomed as liberators," but it turns out that "we don't know anything about the Middle East." Did he believe in 2002 that we were soaked in a nuanced knowledge of the Middle East? And what precisely did Bush say to convince him of that?

When Democrats claim they were duped, they are sidestepping an inconvenient truth: Many of them supported the war for the same reasons as the president. We now know Saddam didn't have WMD stockpiles, but the only reason we know it with any certainty is that we crushed his regime. To pretend that, absent Bush's deceptions, everyone would have known with exactitude the reduced state of Saddam's weapons programs is juvenile and contemptible, especially from Democrats who want to shimmy their way out of their pro-war votes.

This is where the Howard Dean Democrats deserve a glimmer of admiration. They were against the war, period. Even when things seem to go well in Iraq, they hold firm. Dean was unswayed by the capture of Saddam two years ago. They don't sully themselves with after-the-fact rationalizations and evasions, and have the courage of their paranoid and wrongheaded convictions.

But their drumbeat of "Bush lied" puts their party's leaders in a bind. If Bush was a misleader, many top Democrats were misleadees. Dick Polman, a political reporter for Knight-Ridder News, reminds us that Republican George Romney damaged his presidential bid in 1968 by claiming he had been deceived by the military into supporting the Vietnam War. Voters weren't looking for a president who could, by his own account, be easily misled. Gullibility is not a leadership trait.

(Full text of the article can be read at the above URL)

I know this perpetuates these somewhat narrow-minded posts, but what the hell they're a bit of fun ...

The Democrats were gullible to allow Bush the authority to go to war in Iraq. They were gullible to trust him ...to trust that he would only go to war as a last resort ...that he would exhaust all other avenues before putting our soldiers in harm's way.

I said before we went into Iraq that we'd win the war easily but never win the peace. You can't militarily change thousands of years of culture. It didn't work in Vietnam. It won't work in Iraq. There is no military weapon that can defeat the human heart.