|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Subject: my last four cents
Ok Bart,
I wouldn't dream of denying that Bush had the
CIA lie to Congress to try to fool them into passing
the Iraq Attack resolution. Probably there were
some big whopper secret lies that were only told in
super-secret briefings. If so, you and I don't
know what lies were told or whether any Representatives
were actually persuaded by them.
Nonetheless, you, a gambler, are betting that
the super-secret lies were really, really convincing.
And on this basis you defend the "yes" voters
as responsible, if misled, patriots, while maligning
the "no" voters as irresponsible, although proven
right, traitors. Why do you do that?
With what we know, I shouldn't call the no voters
"traitors." If I did, I had no right to.
But I'd sure like to hear Her and Feingold debate
that secret briefing and what it told them.
And it's OK to disagree with me on this, but I
fail to understand why I'm seen as
stretching reality to bend over backwards to
prevent saying anything bad about Her.
Sidebar:
What if every "harpy,
calculated, slut, shrew, bitch, whore"
slur is true.
Would you rather have that
- or more of what we have right now?
And a spit-in shot of Cuervo
to the first monkey who says, "They are
twins."
I was about to answer your question when I saw
your next sentence.
You accuse me of being "cock-sure it [the secret
briefing at which the whopper lies supposedly were told
to Congress] was less than persuasive?"
Not so. I completely agree with you that you and I don't know
anything about whatever super-secret lies were
told to Congress during the run up to the Iraq Attack.
Then we agree about that. Since we don't know
the facts, I fail to see how She gains
the name "war monger" from the hard lefties.
They don't know, either.
I merely pointed out to you that the fact that
a majority of Democrats in Congress (21 Senators and
126 House Members) voted "no" on the Iraq Attack
would tend to indicate that the super-secret lies
weren't exactly "slam-dunk" convincing.
A-ha! We are about to make progress.
The House didn't get to see the evidence, and
I assume "secret evidence" can't be shared,
so in this debate, House votes and opinions
don't matter. ONLY the senate saw Bush's "facts."
You draw an entirely different conclusion -- without
any logical basis, it seems to me. You say that
because 29 Democratic Senators voted "yes" on
the Iraq Attack, it may not now be doubted that
the super-secret lies were "slam dunk" convincing.
You then assert that the "no" voters, therefore,
irresponsibly voted against our national security
by voting "no".
We're shooting in the dark because we don't know.
Hypothetically, if the evidence is 50/50, how
should a senator vote?
What if the evidence is 47 percent that Saddam
has
WMDs and can deliver in 45 minutes
and the evidence is 53 percent that Saddam
has no WMDs at all.
How should a responsible Democrat vote?
Second sidebar:
I believe we've stumbled
into an actual debate of substance.
Where does that bloody line get drawn?
Thousands (or tens of millions, you don't know)
of lives hang on your vote, let's say.
What if the evidence is 70 percent no WMDs,
but 30 percent that he does AND
they could take out the East Coast in less than
an hour? How do you vote?
The answer just might tilt the next election.
All this to avoid saying that Hilary made a big
mistake -- when Hilary hasn't even tried
to blame her "yes" vote on being lied to by the
CIA.
She hasn't yet needed to show her hand.
Why should she show her hand before she has to?
This is related to running to second base before
touching first.
Politics is a game and I think she knows
exactly what she has to do to win.
Some call that "calculating," I call it "smart."
Nobody has their eye on the Oval more
than she does.
Why do I care? Because I thought we learned something
from WWII and Nuremberg.
Having the people in Congress who voted for this
crime say "we didn't know that the Fuher
really intended to attack, and besides we were
fooled by the CIA" is just a rank lie.
They need to admit it to begin to regain some
credibility.
That would be an opinion you hold, not
a fact.
Plus, you just gave Bush a pass on lying, so
aren't your motives now suspect? (kidding)
You say, "It's reeeeeeeeeeal easy to look back
and say,
'Why didn't they know in 2003 what we know in
2006?'"
That's a cold, hard fact, not an opinion.
But the operative question is "Why should they
be allowed to pretend now not to have known
in Fall of 2002 what you and I knew in Fall of
2002?" After all, they had what we didn't have
-- the benefit of all the most super-secret briefings!
All I had was what I read on the web.
At the risk of going down the same road twice
- there's what - 50M people on the East Coast?
You would've bet 50M American lives on the
info you and I had in 2003?
Keep swinging that big one.
Neal in Batavia
p.s. senate
vote info here:
How'd you know it was big?