Video: Vilsack says we’ve been in Iraq for 5 1/2 years

posted at 4:40 pm on January 11, 2007 by Ian


Democratic presidential candidate Tom Vilsack apparently thinks we’ve been at war in Iraq for 5 1/2 years. Perhaps he’s thinking of 9/11, which was 5 1/3 years ago.

He was also grilled by both Sean Hannity and liberal Kirsten Powers, sitting in for Alan Colmes, about Senator Kennedy’s plan to deny President Bush the funds for a troop surge. Powers in particular had a hard time understanding the “middle ground” Vilsack claims to have found between Kennedy’s and Bush’s proposals.

(h/t: Randy)

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Between him and Kucinich, I fear that Mensa has taken over the Democratic party.

bbz123 on January 11, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Ian you just called AP’s girlfriend a liberal.

frreal on January 11, 2007 at 4:49 PM

yeah, I heard this except a little bit ago… I kept thinking “5 1/2 years? Is this what new math has brought us to?”

dalewalt on January 11, 2007 at 4:51 PM

I hate to be mean, but Kirsten is disappointing. Yeah, she’s a babe, which is a rarity in the dem circle, but the substance or lack thereof of her questions is painful. When our lovely and gracious Michelle hosted the show, her questions were meaty and dare I say, ballsy. This is a perfect window into the lib and conservative mind. Sorry Kirsten, but you have to be symbolism while Michelle is substance…

ritethinker on January 11, 2007 at 4:53 PM

Sorry AP, I forgot she is your new lib squeeze…but..never mind…….

ritethinker on January 11, 2007 at 4:54 PM

hate to be mean, but Kirsten is disappointing. Yeah, she’s a babe, which is a rarity in the dem circle, but the substance or lack thereof of her questions is painful. When our lovely and gracious Michelle hosted the show, her questions were meaty and dare I say, ballsy. This is a perfect window into the lib and conservative mind. Sorry Kirsten, but you have to be symbolism while Michelle is substance…

thats because she is trying to be honest, you can’t be honest and be a Liberal/Democrat at the same time. Its sickening what the dem/libs have done to American Politics.

jp on January 11, 2007 at 4:56 PM

Let’s be honest here guys, what is the first thing you think of when you hear the name Vilsack? You know, like I have a video on AF Videos showing me taking a line-drive in the Vilsack…….

ritethinker on January 11, 2007 at 4:57 PM

I’ve heard 5 1/2 years three times in the last two days. What are the weenies up to now?

This guy dodged more questions last night than there are Ram Trucks.

shooter on January 11, 2007 at 4:57 PM

I know why the Dems want to cut off funding for the war in Iraq…….. they have to pay back Al Queda for getting them elected.

PinkyBigglesworth on January 11, 2007 at 4:58 PM

I hate to be mean, but Kirsten is disappointing. Yeah, she’s a babe, which is a rarity in the dem circle, but the substance or lack thereof of her questions is painful.

She asked the most pertinent question of the interview. She clonked him on the head with his absurd assertion of some “middle ground” between Kennedy and Bush’s respective positions on Irag. She asked him more than once if he would vote WITH Kennedy if he were able to and she let him look like the stupid waffling liberal that he is when he failed to answer the question. She then took it further and explored his RED HERRING, namely that there was some imaginary position in the middle of Kennedy and Bush, by making it clear that she thought his point was ridiculous! What more could anyone do, short of laughing in his face and calling him “silly”?

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 5:05 PM

Not a bad strategy, Soothsayer, we need to laugh at them as often as possible,.

bbz123 on January 11, 2007 at 5:11 PM

OT: anyone see this Drudge headline?

NATIONAL RADIO TALK HOST FACES ARREST OVER PROSTITUTE

doesn’t say who yet, but don’t let it be Rush! That is the last thing we need right now is a Rush scandal for the media to focus on.

jp on January 11, 2007 at 5:17 PM

KP – Would you support Kennedy’s proposal
TV – I think it’s important to ask these questions… yada yada… and no real answer is given.

He uses the “At the End of th Day” quote.

Yet, the new math prevails. It means there is no middle ground, and his math means there is nothing between 0 and 1.

Kini on January 11, 2007 at 5:17 PM

Yeah, but in about another 2 years or so, more or less, mas o menos, it will have been! So there!!!

Seriously, on the KP thing, the guy who commented about her trying to be honest has a point. To me it seems that she has found it a bit painful at times…for example, the Trump/O’Donnell thing obviously bores her (as it does me). And I think that she has been trying to be intellectually honest not just as a fill-in but even when she discusses issues with Michelle Malkin. She deals with issues head-on, rather than by name calling, spinning, and what have you. This leaves her in a dilemma because some of the positions that she has to defend are difficult for an honest person to defend. Alan Colmes (who I think is an honest analyst too) does okay but he does so by simply asking the same questions over and over, and not listening to the answers he gets.(Another KP point…she listens to the answers and pursues them rather than following a pre-programmed line). To me, this is not a criticism of KP…it is to her credit.

Blaise on January 11, 2007 at 5:17 PM

just as I was typing that, Drudge took headline down?

jp on January 11, 2007 at 5:18 PM

It seems that all three of them were focusing on their own talking/questioning points, and not paying as much attention to the answers as they should. That’s what always happens in a three-way interview. Otherwise, I’m certain that both Hannity and KP would have noticed the discrepancy of saying we’d been in Iraq for 5.5 years.

It’s one thing for a single moderator to bring two opposing people on the air and ask each of them the toughest questions for their side to answer. That works well if the moderator has integrity. But when Hannity and Colmes, or any other polar opposite pair of pundits, interviews one person simultaneously, it always degenerates into a shouting match to see who can get their talking point out loudest. Since KP is thoughtful, polite, and decent, it’s not so bad in this case, but substance still loses.

Freelancer on January 11, 2007 at 5:22 PM

they should ditch Colmes for KP, asap.

1) she is eye candy

2) she isn’t a complete idiot/fool and annoying and doesn’t hurt my ears.

3) she is eye candy

jp on January 11, 2007 at 5:24 PM

1. Is this the new math for the new taxes the Dems aren’t going to pass?

2. Jp, They can’t replace Colmes for KP, Hannity couldn’t keep his focus on the topic.

Catseye on January 11, 2007 at 5:27 PM

I saw it too, jp, you did not imagine it, and I agree, let it be Imus please please….

bbz123 on January 11, 2007 at 5:32 PM

soothsayer wrote: “by making it clear that she thought his point was ridiculous!”

Sorry, but I didn’t get this impression at all. I think she did indeed realize what a stupid position he was taking, but I think she was desperately trying to give him some political cover by trying to get him to restate his position and not look like an ass.

georgej on January 11, 2007 at 5:33 PM

I’ve heard 5 1/2 years three times in the last two days. What are the weenies up to now?

This guy dodged more questions last night than there are Ram Trucks.

shooter on January 11, 2007 at 4:57 PM

If by that you mean three different people have used that number, then it must be on the talking-points memo. And since he said it several times and neither Hannity or Powers caught it, odds are they’ll get away with it. It’s all about ramping up the war weariness factor, by any means necessary. Including outright lying.

The Monster on January 11, 2007 at 5:33 PM

Yup, Monster, if in fact there are numerous incidents of this lie already out there, they will subliminally make people actually start to think it is true.

bbz123 on January 11, 2007 at 5:38 PM

Vilsack has personally proven my point that the Democrats are more than happy with the “Stay The Course” idea for Iraq.

And, of course, the Democrat idea is to “make the Iraqis stand up and take control of the situation” without increasing the US troop presence in Iraq.

Someone recently had that idea. Who was it.. let me think. Oh, that’s right. Donald Rumsfeld. We did that for “five and a half years”.

Nethicus on January 11, 2007 at 5:47 PM

Of course, if President Bush had said 5-1/2 years, it would be a months-long scandal and Democrats would we wanting an independent counsel to be appointed to “investigate”. But Vilsack (and apparently a couple of others) can deliberately repeat the lie 3 times and it’s okay. Par for the course, and of course there’s no bias in the media.

And so what if it really had been 5-1/2 years? The President told us a month after 9/11 that it was going to be a long war against terrorism, which is something that any reasonably intelligent person should have been able to figure out anyway. Vilsack thinks he’s Presidential material, but hasn’t got the guts to see a war through to its conclusion? Of course, if we use that for a standard, the entire Democratic leadership (except Joe Lieberman) would be disqualified from running.

Let’s be honest here guys, what is the first thing you think of when you hear the name Vilsack? You know, like I have a video on AF Videos showing me taking a line-drive in the Vilsack…….

ritethinker on January 11, 2007 at 4:57 PM

You are so dead-on with that observation, ritethinker. And right now there are an awful lot of people with D’s after their names that I’d like to kick in the Vilsack. With my size-13 steel-toed boots.

ReubenJCogburn on January 11, 2007 at 5:54 PM

doesn’t say who yet, but don’t let it be Rush!

I wouldn’t worry too much. Rush isn’t running for office. If it is him, I doubt it’ll have much actual political effect. And it’ll give left-wing bloggers something to write about for a while; keeps ‘em off the streets.

I’d feel bad for Rush. For that matter, I’d feel bad for the prostitute! But I don’t think it would matter much in the big picture, politically.

sandberg on January 11, 2007 at 6:08 PM

I like KP and she does hold her own when she is one on one with others. But H&C is a different format. It has a conservative leaning and I’m sure that whatever host comes in for Colmes they are told to tone it down so the conservative side of the argument is dominant.

csdeven on January 11, 2007 at 6:11 PM

Wow, KP seemed pretty nervous in that clip. You been stalking her again AP? :P

Benaiah on January 11, 2007 at 6:16 PM

Vilsack is a tool. My 23 year old daughter (who is not political) watched both inteviews (Vilsack and the rep guy don’t remember his name not Rudy) and she was completely disgusted by Vilsack. It’s good news that someone in her age group can see the difference between serious discussion and assinine rhetoric.

csdeven on January 11, 2007 at 6:19 PM

What more could anyone do, short of laughing in his face and calling him “silly”?

Soothsayer on January 11, 2007 at 5:05 PM

So exactly right. Sometimes it just doesn’t make any sense to deal in specifics with idiots…

Jaibones on January 11, 2007 at 6:19 PM

… she isn’t a complete idiot/fool and annoying and doesn’t hurt my ears.

jp on January 11, 2007 at 5:24 PM

Also, jp, and I’m surprised you didn’t mention it, she IS eye candy.

Jaibones on January 11, 2007 at 6:21 PM

doesn’t say who yet, but don’t let it be Rush!

Can’t be Rush, or they would have led the newscast with it, and blared his name from beginning to end.

Can’t be Imus cause he hasn’t had a chubby since Reagan was in office, unless maybe he’s hired a hooker to change his diapers…

Jaibones on January 11, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Thanks for the h/t Ian… I just wanted to add that obviously 4 years isn’t “good” where as 5 1/2 would be “bad”… but he clearly DELIBERATELY exaggerated. He said it twice! The first time he said it, I caught it and while I knew he clearly did it on purpose, I was willing to let it slide because you know the left would just insist it was a slip… but then he repeated it again later in a very obvious attempt to flat out lie.

Also good (but not included in this clip) was Hannity repeatedly asking Vilsack to simply say “yes or no” on whether he agrees with Kennedy’s position. We see this with libs all the time, but this one was one of the more annoying. He couldn’t answer straight simple questions from Sean or KP. I openly admit I knew virtually nothing about Vilsack before, but I know consider him to be one of the biggest POSs of the Democratic Party.

RightWinged on January 11, 2007 at 6:24 PM

Gee… only 3000 dead in five and half years. Wow what a quagmire!

E L Frederick (Sniper One) on January 11, 2007 at 6:30 PM

I’ve heard 5 1/2 years three times in the last two days. What are the weenies up to now?

Perhaps another paradoxical Dem talking point? 5.5 years would be about 9/11, which would be the beginning of the War on Terror. If this 5.5 years thing isn’t an accident (though it probably is), it could be an attempt to claim that the entire War on Terror is an apalling failure just like Iraq and that we should give up, while at the same time claiming Saddam had nothing to do with terrorism.

Iraq’s an arrogant mistake, so War on Terror is an arrogant mistake, though Terror and Iraq are not at all related.

Lehosh on January 11, 2007 at 6:53 PM

If this 5.5 years thing isn’t an accident (though it probably is)

Definitely not an accident (see previous explanation)

RightWinged on January 11, 2007 at 7:00 PM

Vilsack is a tool. My 23 year old daughter (who is not political) watched … and she was completely disgusted by Vilsack. It’s good news that someone in her age group can see the difference between serious discussion and assinine rhetoric.

csdeven on January 11, 2007 at 6:19 PM

What was astounding to me was the manner in which Vilsack continually evaded giving straight answers to both mild and probing questions. Even for a politician is was pretty amazing/disgusting. Sean was ready to bang his head on the desk by the end of the interview.

Mallard T. Drake on January 11, 2007 at 7:19 PM

Well, it looks like Vilsack’s presidential ambitions just died. As a stratagist (and tactician), it appears that he puts his judgement above that of David Petraus. Considering that the bulk of the troops will be going to Baghdad (over doubling the number currently there), I believe that this will make a significant difference.

But only time will tell. Just wonder what will happen if and when Dave is proven right?

Natrium on January 11, 2007 at 7:47 PM

In 4 years of war, 3000 of our soldiers have been lost. On 9/11 they kill 3000 American in 2 hours. Rush Limbaugh

Quagmire is a character on the Family Guy. No matter, in 10 years or so Global Warming will destroy the earth.

Kini on January 11, 2007 at 7:49 PM

If they really want to play that game, we’ve been in Iraq for 16 1/2 years.

- The Cat

MirCat on January 11, 2007 at 8:30 PM

Hell, this world caliphate thing has been going on for a millenium and a half. Quagmire doesn’t even come close to that concept.

bbz123 on January 11, 2007 at 8:35 PM

I agree that this was no mistake because all week it’s been a liberal talking point that “this war” has been going on longer than WWII as if they might mean since 9/11, but they only go on to talk about Iraq. It seems to me that if we’re counting the whole war we at least need to go back to first WTC bombing and add the eight years we were at war and pretended we didn’t know it.

RW_theoriginal on January 11, 2007 at 8:52 PM

My first reaction whenever I see the Name:

Tom Vilsack

“Who?”

Seriously, every time I read somthing about him I have to google the name and then I’m “Oh right, Iowa.”

Sooner or later the name might actually stick…. but I actually hope not.

And considering that this precedint exists

5-6 years doesn’t sound all that bad.

Except to the instant gratification demanding, scratch-off lottery playing, “Long term planning? who? me?” minded individuals.

Jones Zemkophill on January 11, 2007 at 9:48 PM

There once was a man named Vilsack
Whose math was a little off track
When asked to expound
About troops on the ground,
His answer was “I don’t know jack.”

TugboatPhil on January 11, 2007 at 11:50 PM

Between him and Kucinich, I fear that Mensa has taken over the Democratic party.

bbz123 on January 11, 2007 at 4:48 PM

Missed it by one letter.

infidel4life on January 12, 2007 at 12:33 AM

My first reaction whenever I see the Name:
Tom Vilsack
“Who?”
Seriously, every time I read somthing about him I have to google the name and then I’m “Oh right, Iowa.”

Um, I live in Iowa and I go through almost the same thing.

Tom VIlsack
“Who?”
Oh yeah, our moron ex-governor.
(Not to be confused with our moron current governor.)

Tink on January 12, 2007 at 12:45 AM

Colmes better not take any more time off..seriously anyone they put in there shows him up 1000 fold. Can’t stand to look at him (some days he looks like he’s death warmed over) and his smirk when he knows his argument is on the stupid side makes me sick. I can’t stand people who like to argue for the sake of arguing. It’s probably why KP doesn’t come off like we are used to, she may be a democrat but I’m not sure I’d put her in the loon category which a lot of them belong in that spew garbage to the MSM. She tends to be more thoughtful on subjects..maybe she is nervous. That is not her typical style of venue as a host.

Vilsack…is an idiot. Anyone that would keep that last name is nuts lol.

Highrise on January 12, 2007 at 2:40 AM

During the eight years Vilsack was Governor of Iowa he promised everything to everyone (true to Democratic politics) and achieved literally almost none of it. The most glaring bullet statements of his farewell speech were how we (still) need to do all the things he ran on during his two campaigns. Now I know why the people of Arkansas were so glad to see Bill Clinton leave for greener pastures in Washington, but am just as mystified as to why Vilsack thinks he is presidential timber. Scary thought, an omen of him winning?

bcre8v on January 12, 2007 at 3:58 PM