Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
HERE IS WHY DEMOCRATS THOUGHT THEY WOULD GET AWAY WITH IT
By Lorie Byrd · November 15, 2005 01:59 PM
When you watch this incredibly good RNC web video you might ask how on earth the Democrats ever thought they would get away with accusing the President of lying and misleading the country into the war in Iraq. I would answer that with the following:
1. They were emboldened when they were successful in getting the President to say the "16 words" should not have been included in the SOTU speech. This was the beginning of the "Bush lied" mantra. Many even claimed that Bush admitted he lied about the 16 words when he said they should not have been included. More on that sequence of events here and here.
2. They knew they had control of the MSM and that most reporters are too lazy to check previous statements of Democrats and their memories are too short to remember those statements, unless, of course, they would be harmful to Republicans. (Update: Some readers have argued that reporters are not so much lazy as agenda-driven. I think it is both, and would agree that agenda often is the overriding factor.)
3. They were following the example of Bill Clinton that if you repeat something often enough it becomes perceived as truth and in politics perception is everything.
4. (Added as an update upon further reflection) Another reason is that Bush has been too darned nice. Clinton used to badmouth Republicans on a daily basis and would refute any allegation made by Republicans by blaming it on his enemies' desire to destroy him. Bush has taken a 180 degree different approach by not blaming others and rarely responding to his critics. The longer Democrats claimed Bush lied and got no response, the bolder they got. I'll bet they feel like they have been hit over the head with a two by four this week. The shock has probably not worn off yet.
If you follow the links above to my previous posts you will see that I have been urging the President to refute the "Bush lied" accusations for well over a year now. When I heard that he was going to "push back" against the accusations I was glad, but was afraid it might be too little too late. I am convinced by the President's two recent speeches, as well as the excellent web video linked above, that the effort is a serious one and that if it is continued with this intensity it can be successful. I think that it is possible that not only can the President win the argument about whether or not he lied or manipulated intelligence, but that he can expose the big lie the Democrats have been telling ever since the 16 words "apology" led them to believe they could get away with rewriting history.
UPDATE: For those who don't follow all the links and doubt that I have really been calling for the current action from the President for over a year, here is an excerpt from one of my posts from July 10, 2004 regarding the 16 words/Plame matter:
I believe this is one of the most outrageous cases of media bias and journalistic malpractice ever. It gave Democrats the opportunity to start their Bush lied mantra, which continues unabated to this day. You can read my rant about that here. Bush made a huge mistake when he distanced himself from the SOTU statement and he made another one by not more vigorously denouncing the lie accusations. I think all these matters (the 16 words, Wilson/Plame, WMD, etc.) should be addressed and Democrats held to account. There is a very strong case to be made that not only did Bush not lie", but that the Democrats knew he didnt when they accused him of it. These are national security matters that the Democrats have been playing politics with and that is inexcusable. They should be made to answer for their behavior.
Now maybe Polipundit readers will understand why I have been obsessing somewhat over this story the past few days.
UPDATE II: Evidently the "push back" is striking some nerves. A moonbat meeting has been called just to address it.
11/14/05
'I think it's a lie to say that the president lied'
That is what John McCain said in response to Bob Schieffer's question on Face the Nation yesterday, "Do you believe it is unpatriotic to criticize the administration's Iraq policy?" Here's McCain's reply in full:
"No, I think it's a very legitimate aspect of American life to criticize and to disagree and to debate. But I want to say I think it's a lie to say that the president lied to the American people [boldface added]. I sat on the Robb-Silberman commission. I saw many, many analysts that came before that committee. I asked every one of themI said, `Didwere you ever pressured politically or any other way to change your analysis of the situation as you saw [it]?' Every one of them said no. Now was there a colossal intelligence failure? Of course, there was. Is there still a lot that needs to be done to improve that? Are we winning the war on terror? I think it depends on your parameters. But to assert that the president intentionally lied to the American people is just wrong."
But that, of course, is what so many leading Democrats want the American people to think. And to judge from the polls, they have been making some headway since they shut the Senate down and imposed a secret session to consider this issue three weeks ago.
President Bush responded forthrightly in his speech on Veterans Day last week. He spoke at great length of the murderous ideology of "Islamic radicalism" instead of just unspecified terrorismsomething he started doing only this fall and probably should have been doing long ago. Toward the end, he addressed the Democrats' charges:
"While it's perfectly legitimate to criticize my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how that war began. [Applause.] Some Democrats and antiwar critics are now claiming we manipulated the intelligence and misled the American people about why we went to war. These critics are fully aware that a bipartisan Senate investigation found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs.
"They also know that intelligence agencies from around the world agreed with our assessment of Saddam Hussein. They know the United Nations passed more than a dozen resolutions citing his development and possession of weapons of mass destruction. And many of these critics supported my opponent during the last election, who explained his position to support the resolution in the Congress this way: 'When I vote to give the president of the United States the authority to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, it is because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a threat, and a grave threat, to our security.' That's why more than a hundred Democrats in the House and the Senatewho had access to the same intelligencevoted to support removing Saddam Hussein from power. [Applause.]
"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high, and the national interest is too important, for politicians to throw out false charges. [Applause.] These baseless attacks send the wrong signal to our troops and to an enemy that is questioning America's will. As our troops fight a ruthless enemy determined to destroy our way of life, they deserve to know that their elected leaders who voted to send them to war continue to stand behind them. [Applause.] Our troops deserve to know that this support will remain firm when the going gets tough. [Applause.] And our troops deserve to know that whatever our differences in Washington, our will is strong, our nation is united, and we will settle for nothing less than victory. [Applause.]"
Of course, the Democrats are squawking. McCain and Bush are daring to call their chargethat Bush deliberately lied about intelligencefor the Big Lie that it is. The Democrats still argue that there needs to be an investigation of whether the administration lied about prewar intelligence. But, as the White House points out, the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Silberman-Robb commission, and Lord Butler in Britain have conducted such investigations and have found no manipulation of intelligenceand that the raw intelligence that leading members of the administration had at the time but members of Congress did not was even more alarming than what members of Congress had.
Go back, if we must, to 2002 and 2003. What we knew then was that (a) Saddam Hussein's regime had developed weapons of mass destructionchemical and biological weapons and the beginnings of a nuclear weapons programin the past, (b) that regime had used such weapons against its own people, and (c) that regime had refused over a long time to cooperate with the U.N. inspection program. Even apart from the intelligence reports indicating that WMD programs were continuing, it would have been grossly irresponsible for any U.S. government to have assumed that they had stopped. What kind of intelligence could we have obtained, in those circumstances, that would have convinced us that they had stopped? The failure of U.N. inspectors to find WMD programs? But they could easily be hidden, and the actions of regime operatives suggested they were hiding something. Statements by top-level defectors or regime members that the programs were not ongoing? Any intelligence analyst would have to assume that these might be disinformation. Statements by Saddam himself? Come on.
The Democrats are trying to relitigate the prewar intelligence issue in the hopes of delegitimizing this administration. But in delegitimizing the administration, they also tend to delegitimize the efforts of the U.S. government, including military personnel, in Iraq and generally in the war against Islamic terrorism. To the extent they delegitimize the United States, they are hurting the cause of freedom for millions of people. I do not say the Democrats are being unpatriotic, a word they seem fixated on. So far as I am aware, no responsible Republican has charged that they are unpatriotic; John McCain refused Bob Schieffer's invitation to do so. But I do say this: The Democrats who are peddling the Big Lie of "Bush lied" are doing so either (a) deliberately to injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world or, as I think, (b) with reckless disregard of whether they injure the cause of the United States and of freedom in the world. What they are doing may suit their political needs, but it hurts our country.
I'll leave the last word to Fred Hiatt, editorial-page editor of the Washington Post, who seems to take a similar view in his column today.
"'Those aren't irrelevant questions [about prewar intelligence],' says Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). 'But the more they dominate the public debate, the harder it is to sustain public support for the war.'
"What Lieberman doesn't say is that many Democrats would view such an outcome as an advantage. Their focus on 2002 is a way to further undercut President Bush, and Bush's war, without taking the risk of offering an alternative strategyto satisfy their withdraw-now constituents without being accountable for a withdraw-now position.
"Many of them understand that dwindling public support could force the United States into a self-defeating position, and that defeat in Iraq would be disastrous for the United States as well as for [Iraqi Vice President Adel Abdul] Mahdi and his countrymen. But the taste of political blood as Bush weakens, combined with their embarrassment at having supported the war in the first place, seems to override that understanding."
Navigator said:This administration ...
Link is messed up for me...tons of unreadable text..Kathianne said:
