Rove: Democrats out of step on Iraq
posted at 8:48 am on March 21, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Karl Rove has news for the Democrats — the Iraq political narrative has changed dramatically since 2006. The positions taken by both Democratic frontrunners only have the support of 18% of the American people, and two-thirds want the US to act responsibly for Iraq rather than abandon Iraqis to their fate. Rove sees disaster for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama if they continue to play the withdrawal card in the general election:
One out of five is not a majority. Democrats should keep that simple fact of political life in mind as they pursue the White House.
For a party whose presidential candidates pledge they’ll remove U.S. troops from Iraq immediately upon taking office — without regard to conditions on the ground or the consequences to America’s security — a late February Gallup Poll was bad news. The Obama/Clinton vow to pull out of Iraq immediately appears to be the position of less than one-fifth of the voters.
Only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn “on a timetable as soon as possible.” And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better.
It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe “the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops.” The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda “would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations” if the U.S. withdraws.
Where have we heard that recently? Oh, yes, from Osama bin Laden, who called Iraq the “perfect base” of operations to liberate Palestine. It appears that American voters have kept up with the progress of the war better than the two Democratic candidates.
It isn’t just Hillary and Obama, either. Harry Reid is still valiantly holding out hope for defeat in Iraq; he keeps claiming that the surge has failed, as does Nancy Pelosi as recently as last month, and Senator Carl Levin as well. However, Americans have begun to glean the limited reporting of the change in Iraq. For instance, Ramadi had at one time been the most violent city on Earth, with 30-35 attacks at day in early 2007. Now the city in Anbar has less than one attack a week, and has five times as many native police officers from a year ago. The US has completed over 1600 reconstruction projects in Ramadi alone.
These results have been replicated throughout Iraq, especially over the last six months. Democrats refuse to acknowledge them, though, and Hillary Clinton went so far as to call General David Petraeus a liar during his Congressional testimony that reported the progress. If they acknowledge the progress — which now includes the de-Baathification reform and provincial elections they demanded — then they have to admit that they declared defeat much too early. The Democrats would have to admit that the Bush administration had it right when they changed to a counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq. So far, they cannot bring themselves to admit reality, and so they continue to cling to their fantasy of American defeat.
The Democrats have tied their fortunes to failure in the 2008 elections. Unfortunately for them, Americans don’t like to fail, and they don’t like to abandon people to terrorists and genocide. We did that in South Vietnam in 1975, and millions of people died in the aftermath. If Democrats think that defeatism, retreat, and surrender work for them, Rove’s analysis of polling — his forté — should give them pause.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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
Comment pages:
The Democratic base seems to still be using the Vietnam play book to work against the military, so I doubt that 2006 vs ‘08 updates have any relevance.
Hening on March 21, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Rove also claimed this prior to the 2006 election, and that didn’t turn out so well.
e-pirate on March 21, 2008 at 8:51 AM
Except the defeat in 2006 wasn’t about the war, it was about there being no difference between republicans and democrats in every other area. It was about the republicans arrogance and disinterest in the beliefs of the American people.
peacenprosperity on March 21, 2008 at 8:54 AM
Rove: like waving a red cape in front of a bull. The Dems will take the bait and attack him, letting McCain step in and “explain” how well we are doing.
Keeping the one thing that the Dems are most weak on, in front of the public.
Rove…you magnificent bastard…
right2bright on March 21, 2008 at 9:01 AM
I think there’s a make believe news anchor on MSDNC, er MSNBC who won’t like what Rove says.
SteveMG on March 21, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Rove also claimed this prior to the 2006 election, and that didn’t turn out so well.
e-pirate on March 21, 2008 at 8:51 AM
How often have we heard this mantra; Democrats swore on their copy of the Koran, that the 2006 election results were a mandate by the American people to pull out of Iraq and let the slaughter begin.
The American disdain for the Iraq war was simple; we win, we don’t lose. While the game plan was to handcuff our military from doing what they do best (winning), the American people were not happy with the Iraq war.
Keemo on March 21, 2008 at 9:16 AM
They were not happy with how the war was being fought, executed, not unhappy about the war itself.
When we had successes, the fickle people moved to support. The American people can’t take any prolong (read more then a few weeks) of negative news.
We wanted a micro-wave war…
right2bright on March 21, 2008 at 9:25 AM
The absolutely worthless, incompetent and corrupt traitor scum in the vile Democrat Party allow their lunatic sociopath base to lead them around by their noses.
The Democrat base consists of geriatric hippies and glue sniffing juvenile delinquents. These people lust for a humiliating surrender for American troops and as much chaos as possible, just so they can elect (they hope) a few more utterly worthless Democrats to office.
Democrat politicians are in a hopeless quagmire of corruption and stupidity and the sooner they withdraw from America, the better.
DEMOCRATS OUT OF AMERICA NOW!
NoDonkey on March 21, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Uh… keeping one of about 27 things the Dems are frighteningly weak on is more accurate.
Sugar Land on March 21, 2008 at 9:48 AM
I went to the Hilary speech here in Pittsburgh out of curiosity. Her statement about withdrawing from Iraq got the loudest applause. Until the primary is over the Democrats are stuck with their base.
I talked to the people at the event. The black women said they were excited that a woman could win the presidency. I was glad that they are playing identity politics that way–even if it reduces McCain chances. It’s still healthier than the Wright way. There were a good many lesbians. I sat by a cute couple of girls who were concerned about gay marriage. I told them this election isn’t very relevant to gay marriage. Gay marriage would get here when it would by majority support not by Supreme Court fiat. They seemed to get the point that such things are better done democratically rather by judicial fiat. Even people concerned with a particular Supreme Court decision can see the benefits of conservative Supreme Court Justices. Why can’t we communicate this idea better to the public?
thuja on March 21, 2008 at 9:57 AM
Karl, you magnificent bastard!
rightside on March 21, 2008 at 10:21 AM
Just how stupid are the Democrats?
The same voters who believed Harry and Nancy would bring the war to a screeching halt, the very nincompoops that have watched the Dems flounder and fail on every anti-war legislative gambit for the past two years, will step into the voting booths this fall like the brain-numb robots they are, and vote for Obambi or Hill, believing they will magically end the war by the stroke of a pen on the day they are sworn into office.
But here in America, it’s their right. Being stupid, that is.
fogw on March 21, 2008 at 10:37 AM
I’m sure the Dems are taking Rove’s advice to heart and sending him thank you notes. Anything for a replay of the stellar Bush years.
Drum on March 21, 2008 at 10:44 AM
It’s just awful being stick with Rove.
All he ever did was steer the Republican ship to get Bush two consecutive terms as president, derail the Dems at every step along the way, and smile as two conservative judges were appointed to the Supreme Court.
What a dope.
You’re right Drum, the Dems don’t want the advice of this guy. He’s a winner of battles, that’s like kryptonite to the Dems.
fogw on March 21, 2008 at 11:03 AM
Hillary’s position on Iraq is to draw up a “clear, viable plan” for a “phased redeployment” of troops from Iraq. (1) She has no specific timetable, but her position would still qualify as a “timetable withdrawal.”
Obama’s position is more specific, and calls for having all troops “out of Iraq within 16 months.” (2)
Neither candidates position is for immediate withdrawal, and the statements by Ed and the WSJ are incorrect.
The WSJ said that “only 18% of those surveyed by Gallup agreed U.S. troops should be withdrawn ‘on a timetable as soon as possible.’”
Here’s how the WSJ got the number 18%:
One question asked (3):
In Iraq, should the US:
Keep troops there until the situation improves: 35% (down from 39% 2 weeks previous)
Set a timetable for removing troops: 60% (up from 56% 2 weeks previous)
Another question asked this of only those who expressed a desire for a timetable (the 60% from the above question):
In Iraq, should the US:
Withdraw ASAP: 30%
Set timetable: 69%
What the WSJ did, then was to take the 60% from the first question who wanted a timetable and multiplied that by 30%, the percentage of those who want that withdrawal to happen ASAP. 60% times 30% equals 18%. By doing this, and by misrepresenting the positions of both Obama and Hillary, the WSJ can make it appear that the Democratic candidates support a minority opinion. They do this because they are dishonest and have a political agenda.
The truth is that 35% want troop to remain “until the situation improves” (this is McCain’s position).
41% (60% times 69%) want there to be a timetable for withdrawal (Hillary and Obama’s position)
18% want immediate withdrawal (the position of Ron Paul)
The Democratic position has more public support than McCain’s position even when comparing directly. Considering that Ron Paul is no longer in the race, most people in the 18% that want immediate withdrawal would probably prefer a timetable over staying “until the situation improves” (= forever, or at least 100 years). In reality then, the Democratic position has a 59% to 35% advantage over the Republican position on this matter.
The WSJ also said “And only 20% felt the surge was making things worse in Iraq. Twice as many respondents felt the surge was making conditions better.”
Here are the results: 40% better, 20% worse, 38% no difference.
So another way of putting these results is that 58% feel that the surge has not improve the situation in Iraq. Sounds a little different.
Here are some other results that the WSJ did not include:
Did the US make a mistake in sending troops to Iraq?
Yes: 59%, No: 39%
Did the Bush Administration Deliberately Mislead the US public about WMD in Iraq:
Yes: 53%, No: 42%
Here’s another way to report the results of the same poll:
irishnews.com/break.asp?tbrk=brk&par=brk&catid=5834&subcatid=642&storyid=353820
1) hillaryclinton.com/issues/iraq/
2) barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
3) Questions and results are from The Hotline, “Gallup II; Iraq in the High Life Again,” Section: Poll Update, March 14, 2008
dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Duh…
I didn’t make the connection that the WSJ article was written by Rove. Replace all “WSJ” ’s in my above post with “Rove.”
The lies and deceptions make much more sense now.
dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 11:22 AM
“Did the Bush Administration Deliberately Mislead the US public about WMD in Iraq:
Yes: 53%, No: 42%”
Thanks for more proof that the MSM and the Democrat Party have deliberately lied to the American people in an effort to undermine support for the war.
We need to be constantly reminded of how evil and worthless Democrat politicians are.
NoDonkey on March 21, 2008 at 11:30 AM
dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 11:13 AM
Thanks for clearing things up for us dave742.
I want to make sure I have this straight
1. Hillary’s “clear” position centers on “drawing up a plan”. Cool, I can hardly wait. Kerry revisited ….. “I have a plan”. That should work.
2. She will have a “phased” redeployment. Well, that’s just clear as a friggin bell, isn’t it? But then, actually drawing up a schedule and presenting it to the public for consumption and scrutiny is so darned annoying and time consuming.
3. She has no timetable per se, but she qualifies for having one, even though she doesn’t.
Wow! Just Wow.
fogw on March 21, 2008 at 11:33 AM
If you think that Bush was truthful about Iraqi WMD, and that I have been deluded by the MSM, then all I can say is that I disagree, and I believe it is you that is deluded. Your delusion stems from basic human psychology; the inability to be self-critical (and if you identify strongly with your country – the inability to critique your country). It is very common throughout the world.
What is you position on Rove’s lies? Rove says that the position of Obama and Hillary is that of immediate withdrawal. Do you think this is the truth, or a lie? Do you think that Rove is good at distorting statistics, ie., distorting the truth?
I never said I thought Hillary’s position is clear. Her stated position, however, qualifies as a timetable withdrawal, which is not what Rove said.
Maybe you think I am a Democrat, but I don’t like Hillary or Obama any more than I like McCain. They are all identical in my eyes.
If I were to speculate on Hillary’s true position, I don’t think that she would withdraw from Iraq any sooner than McCain. In that case, her position on Iraq is in the minority, just like McCain’s.
dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 11:50 AM
Karl Rove says, “Where would anyone get that idea”?
fogw on March 21, 2008 at 12:04 PM
I supported and still support the Iraq expedition and occupation entirely aside from supposed imminent or near-imminent WMD threats. It was a strategic and moral necessity, and it was justified by Saddam’s failure to abide by the Gulf War cease-fire terms and supporting UN resolutions that the US was a party to.
However, if I had been asked whether or not the Administration deliberately misled the public regarding WMDs in Iraq, I would, reluctantly, have to say that it did. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and others both inside the Administration and closely allied to it and its policy made numerous categorical statements regarding a supposed WMD threat that were not supported by the intelligence. If your intelligence tells you that there are very probably emplacements at such and such a location, that is not the same as certain knowledge of the same. The Administration repeatedly pretended to the latter, while de-emphasizing the stronger and broader case (and real) case for its determination to make war how, where, and when it did.
The Administration believed that it’s proclamations on the subject were true – i.e., that Saddam did have WMDs – and that they would be borne out in time. They were wrong. The lie – or “deliberate misleading” – occurred when they sought to support their honest beliefs with dishonest characterizations of what they were told. Even saying that CIA Director Tenet say “it’s a slam-dunk” is different from saying that you in fact know what Saddam has and where it is.
The overall effect was that the Administration set itself, its key security arms, and its supporters – including a lot of us – up for embarrassment, and for something approaching political disaster. The old Vietnam War “credibility gap” was revived after more than a generation’s work by the military attempting to close it, and eventually extended to every area. After the WMD debacle, everything became harder, politically and otherwise. If you want to know why Bush is no longer heard by the public when he speaks, why we have such a hard time dealing with war fools like Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama, and why the mainstream media can get away with what it gets away with, I would argue that it all started with the “bureaucratic decision” to focus the war sales job on a version of the WMD threat that was merely thought to be based on reality.
CK MacLeod on March 21, 2008 at 12:05 PM
Aaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Seven Percent Solution on March 21, 2008 at 12:09 PM
When the public does not agree with you (in connection with WMD lies), you say it is because the MSM has lied to them and misled them, and that is why they cannot see the “truth” that you see.
In connection with the subject of this thread, I brought up a specific MSM lie, that of Karl Rove in the WSJ. You are unable to address it, because you know it is a lie. You can accept an MSM statement when it is a lie (like Karl Rove portraying Democrats position as pull-out immediately), as long as it conforms with your worldview. If you are shown that it is a lie, and it goes against your worldview, you ignore it. This has been the story of my posting to Conservative blogs for the past 2 years. Accept the lies, ignore the truth.
dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 1:17 PM
Perspicacious
tom on March 21, 2008 at 1:28 PM
What? So 82% want American Soldiers and Marines to have to stay in Iraq for
fiftymake that a hundred years?And so one-third want the US to act respoinsibly for the US. What kind of poll is this?
What is their fate? Having to live with other Iraqis? The Shame of it all! We have to live with other Americans, why shouldn’t they have to live with other Iraqis?
Oh do anything you want to me, but don’t throw me in the brier patch.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 1:30 PM
Of course most Americans are going to be for “reasonable“, rather than “unreasonable“, but are going to differ widely on what constitutes “reasonable” on Iraq or spending or taxes or guns or pretty much anything.
This is a “push poll” if I ever saw one.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 1:51 PM
Oh, if only that was all you could say. Instead, we’ll probably hear more of the same old nonsense about how Bush “misled us into war” and deceived us about Iraqi WMD.
I’ve heard the “Bush lied” crap over and over again, but all the lying I’ve seen on the Iraq war comes from the opponents of it. The lie usually starts with accusing Bush of lying, and goes downhill from there.
You want lies? How about Joseph Wilson lying about his trip to Iraq, claiming he’d been sent by Dick Cheney (he wasn’t), that Dick Cheney had seen his report (he hadn’t), that his wife had nothing to do wit him being picked for the trip (she had), that he had proven that Iraq hadn’t sought nuclear material in Africa (what little evidence he had slightly supported the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Nigeria). He also lied when he claimed the President had lied in the State of the Union address. He also lied when he claimed that Rove had illegally “outed” his wife’s service in the CIA to retaliate. (Actual leaker: Richard Armitage. Actual cause for leaking: gossip, apparently. Actual crime committed: none)
But don’t stop there: there’s plenty of lying going on.
Such as the members of Congress who accused the president of lying about Saddam, when they saw the same intelligence that he did.
And the people who, without evidence, call the President a liar when he was reporting the same information that the rest of the world firmly believed, that Saddam was up to no good.
Or the conveniently forgetful who keep saying Saddam had no WMD’s, when it’s a known fact that he used chemical weapons against the Kurds. Can’t use WMD’s if you don’t have WMD’s.
Arguing that the Iraq war was a mistake: Plausible, though a little too late.
Calling Bush a liar: just the same old crap.
tom on March 21, 2008 at 2:05 PM
WMD lies? I
regurgitate repeatreport, you decide.“Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime … He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction
… So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real…”
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
“We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction.”
- Madeline Albright, Feb 1, 1998
“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
- Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998
“We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them.”
- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
“Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 | Source
“We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”
- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members … It is clear, however, that if left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:10 PM
‘However, if I had been asked whether or not the Administration deliberately misled the public regarding WMDs in Iraq, I would, reluctantly, have to say that it did. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell and others both inside the Administration and closely allied to it and its policy made numerous categorical statements regarding a supposed WMD threat that were not supported by the intelligence. If your intelligence tells you that there are very probably emplacements at such and such a location, that is not the same as certain knowledge of the same. The Administration repeatedly pretended to the latter, while de-emphasizing the stronger and broader case (and real) case for its determination to make war how, where, and when it did.”
Disagree. All of the intelligence they used to make their case was available to the Democrats in the Senate. It was shared by allied intelligence agencies.
What specifically was false? I’ve never seen anyone nail this down. During speeches, you don’t have time to get into 100 pages recitations of intelligence, nor can you give away classified information.
None of it was demonstrably false.
The Democrats voted to go to war to take the issue off of the table prior to the 2002 elections and when they wanted to revive it as an issue to fire up their anti-American lunatic base, they had to have a reason.
That “reason” was and is that Bush lied.
They have never been able to prove their case and the truth is, the left is lying just like the left always lies.
NoDonkey on March 21, 2008 at 2:11 PM
Rove may be right, but words that come from a guy who was wrong about Iraq from the begining, doesn’t exactly give those words much credence.
What’s funny is that Bush says he doesn’t listen to polls, but for the majority of his time in office, as Rove as his Chief of Staff, he had a pollster in his back pocket.
PresidenToor on March 21, 2008 at 2:14 PM
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:28 PM
Clearly Bush was led astray by war mongering Democrats.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Democrats a tool of Bin Ladin.
Chakra Hammer on March 21, 2008 at 2:32 PM
I think that both OBL and Karl Rove have a lot in common with Brer Rabbit.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM
I guess you have not read this thread:
“I supported and still support the Iraq expedition…However, if I had been asked whether or not the Administration deliberately misled the public regarding WMDs in Iraq, I would, reluctantly, have to say that it did.” -CK MacLeod
I guess you have now seen otherwise.
Saying that other people have lied as well is not a defense to those who say that Bush lied. It is true that many Congressmen and Senators lied as well. That does not make me any happier about it. There are, however, 133 Congressmen and 23 Senators that did not vote for the war on Iraq. Not everyone lies.
I did not believe it. Just about everyone I know did not believe it. Most of the media that I read did not belive it. Most people outside the US did not believe it. Please don’t extrapolate what you and your friends might believe to the “rest of the world.”
When this event happened, the US was supporting Iraq. For this reason, at the time they said it was both Iraq and Iran that was responsible. Security Council Resolution 620 condemned the “continued use of chemical weapons in the conflict between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Iraq,” and called on “both sides to refrain from the future use of chemical weapons.” See:
iht.com/articles/2003/01/17/edjoost_ed3_.php
When they need justification for attacking Iraq, the US changed their mind and decided that it was only Saddam that was responsible. When the US decides to attack Iran, maybe they will change their mind again and blame Iran for Halabja. Then you can write in a thread how moral it was for the US to attack Iran because of what they did in Halabja.
dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 2:46 PM
This is really all quite ridiculous. Pretty much everyone thought that Saddam had WMD. Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, Carl Levin, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger, Carl Levin, Saddam Hussein , the Saudis, the French even!
They thought it even when Clinton was President!
Even most of those who voted against the war thought that Saddam had WMD.
What was Bush to do when all those Democrats who were so much smarter than him said that Saddam had WMD?
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:57 PM
MB4:
Regarding your quotes: I guess you did not read what I wrote about not being a Democrat. Yes, many Democrats lied as well. I agree. I don’t like Democrats any more than I like Republicans, and I am not a fan of anyone you quoted. We now have common ground. Maybe we can go out for a beer.
So what exactly is your position? Is it that when the Democrats brought up WMD, they were lying, but when Bush brought it up, he was telling the truth? The Democrats knew the intelligence was wrong, but then lied about it anyway, but Bush believed the intelligence, and so when he brought up WMD, he was telling the truth, but was simply wrong? Is the difference, then, that unlike the Democrats, Bush is too stupid to know a lie when he hears it?
Do you have any comment on the subject of the thread, which is the lies of Karl Rove?
dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 2:59 PM
War mongering Democrats deceived and took advantage of a naive George Bush to get us into another Vietnam!!!
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 3:01 PM
Unfortunately, you put me in the position of having to link to a statement by Senate Carl Levin that sums up several statements that subsequent events make very hard to believe were true or known to be true at the time they were uttered by Bush, Cheney, Powell, and others during the build-up to the war. http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2004_cr/levin012804.html
These and other statements were not made with any qualification – i.e., “intelligence tells us with virtual certainty” or “we strongly believe” rather than “we know” etc. – regarding our supposed certainty that Saddam contemporaneously possessed substantial WMD stockpiles. After the war, also, Bush famously referred to those supposed mobile bio-chem trailers as proof that the Administration was right. The statement and descriptions were later withdrawn. It also strongly strongly suggested that Bush was either misinformed or, again, prevaricating over what had become a major issue.
That numerous leading Democrats echoed or even further overbid such statements doesn’t change the sad fact that, at a time when every word counted, those seeking and receiving responsibility for the war were less than careful at key instances. The British were even worse – since they had made supposed WMD threats even more central to the Blair government’s argument for intervention in Iraq. The erosion of the US-British “special relationship” and the poisoning of US-British relations can in my opinion also be tied to this error.
I think the repeated attempts to paint lipstick on the pig of the mishandled occupation (”dead-enders,” “last throes,” etc.), and to stick with and mis-characterize the light footprint approach, also stemmed from the Administration’s politically urgent desperation to make up for the WMD debacle. If the country had been brought in on the full case for war and if the Administration’s credibility had survived the non-discovery of anything like an imminent WMD threat, then it would have been much easier to request and advance a grown-up, more patient and realistic perspective about the difficulties of occupation.
Much of this relies on the advantages of hindsight, or course. In the great annals of war, the WMD propaganda debacle may be small stuff, but we’re still paying its political cost, and it has greatly harmed our overall efforts in the region – vis-a-vis Iran and Syria, for instance. It is actually a testament to how strong the real case for the Iraq policy was and remains, and how weak left-wing alternatives were and remain, that a more or less effective war effort – including Bush’s re-election in ‘04, the surge in ‘07, and McCain’s current resurgence – has been sustained despite this central, self-dealt blow to the Bush Administration’s credibility.
CK MacLeod on March 21, 2008 at 3:03 PM
See my MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:57 PM
and my
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 2:38 PM
BTW, I only drink MicroBrew, none of that Miller of Bud $hit.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 3:04 PM
B-B-But if we don’t pull out of Iraq, where will Clinton or Obama get the money to pay for their campaign promises?
Kafir on March 21, 2008 at 3:08 PM
I think that it is very likely that they all believed it, including most of those who voted against the war. Were they selective in looking at evidence? Sure. All politicians and non politicians do that.
Bush took office with the Democrats already having declared that Saddam had beaucoup WMD. If Bush had not invaded John Kerry would probably have run against him decrying him for that.
Even Saddam thought that he had WMD and he certainly did in the past, if not at the start of the war.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 3:19 PM
Unless Ben’s duct tape holds Americas leveraged house of cards financial system together neither Hillary nor Obama will have enough money to pay for half of all their promises and Juan will not have enough money to keep more than half the number of troops in Iraq.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 3:24 PM
So strange to be on the same side as MB4 in an argument – since I’ve taken him to be an isolationist. I’ll put it more generally: If Bush had not taken out Saddam in ‘03, the alternatives would still have been extremely costly, and, in my opinion, would have been, by now or eventually, much more costly than the Iraq war has been.
And while we’re talking alternative history, if Gore had been handed the presidency instead of Bush in ‘00, we’d likely be arguing today about “Gore’s Vietnam” in the Middle East.
CK MacLeod on March 21, 2008 at 3:30 PM
MB4:
I give up with the WMD thing. I always swear I will never get distracted into endless, meaningless battles here. Then I do. I do know that many in the media did not believe the pre-war “intelligence”, and it is my opinion that Americans believed a lot more tham other countries, but I cannot back this up. This article does say “British media reported more critically on public policy than did their American colleagues” in the pre-war days, but I could not find anything more comprehensive:
cissm.umd.edu/papers/files/wmdstudy_full.pdf
I will go back to my point concerning the article linked to in this thread. Karl Rove lied in the article. That is my point. Nobody responded to this, and I am done.
I only drink imported beer, so I guess our friendship would not even last until the bartender brought our drinks.
dave742 on March 21, 2008 at 3:33 PM
Don’t agree with all of the financial/economic prognostication, however.
In a $13.1 Trillion economy, the ongoing costs of the Iraq war are close to trivial. In addition, pell-mell withdrawal would incur short-term higher costs than mere maintenance or a more drawn-out de-escalation.
Unless you’re contemplating a massive reduction in defense spending – something neither Democrat has been urging (to the contrary) – and even if you imagine that the war really would “end” if we just bugged outthere is no meaningful “surrender dividend.” The current Democratic talking points on the economic effects of the war are 99 4/10% pure demagoguery.
Obama’s policy, for instance, would be costlier in the short-term than the current policy, since he promises a significant escalation in Afghanistan and accelerated withdrawal with maintenance of a re-invasion capacity. It’s a complete fantasy, of course.
My bet is that he’d try for a slower de-escalation, and would soon be completely overtaken by events. Probably incur massive deficits while attempting to implement Great Society 2 in order to distract his base from Vietnam 2.
Could make for good TV anyway.
CK MacLeod on March 21, 2008 at 3:38 PM
Much of that 13.1 trillion is smoke-and-mirrors.
Just a smattering of examples:
July 05, 2007
$5 Trillion in Housing Wealth Gone: The Impact of the Housing Bubble Bursting.
Much more than $5 trillion by now.
The Fed is spending hundreds of billions, and counting, to bail out highly leveraged riverboat gambler financial houses, which are worth only a fraction of what is on their official books.
Fannie and Freddie are essentially bankrupt.
The long term cost of the Iraq war is estimated to be in the trillions.
The list is almost endless.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 3:59 PM
No – the $13.1 Trillion refers to “gross domestic product” – economic transactions not to estimates of value. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen an estimate of the total value of the United States – the real estate, fixed assets, currency, deposits, etc. – but it would be a lot more than the yearly GDP.
CK MacLeod on March 21, 2008 at 4:02 PM
I knew that. What I am saying is that a lot of it is leveraged smoke-and-mirrors. Like Bear Stern’s and Lehman and there like, and that I think that we are likely going into a recession as the highly leveraged house-of-cards comes “unglued”. The dollar is in the crapper and if foreigners start pulling their money, which is keeping our financial system afloat, out, we are scroomed. My examples were not the best for that maybe.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 4:21 PM
No one really knows what anything is worth until someone buys it – and at that moment it usually loses value. (That’s the problem with economics – damn fools buying and selling stuff.)
In the meantime, the main holders of US debt are dependent on the US consumer to keep their economies afloat. The last thing that the Chinese – to name one major such holder – can afford to do is to cut off the head of their golden goose (you and me). They might as well shoot their nukes straight up into the air – it would be a lot more efficient way to commit suicide than to make economic war on the USA.
But that’s neither here nor there. I like it better when we were agreeing on Harry Turtledove scenarios for recent history.
CK MacLeod on March 21, 2008 at 4:38 PM
I was quite sure you wouldn’t be able to stop with accusing Bush of lying once.
Frankly, I don’t really waste a lot of time on this. Your belief that President Bush lied is not based on fact or careful weighing of evidence, and no facts or evidence will change your mind. I don’t know why you bother to quote someone who agrees with your assessment. There’s no shortage of people who agree with that, just like there’s no shortage of people who believe that LBJ killed Kennedy, or 9/11 was an inside job, or FDR let Pearl Harbor be bombed deliberately. That’s not really evidence.
You do remember my starting statement, that all the lies I’ve seen in this “debate” are repeated by the “Bush lied” crowd. So why are you trying to turn that into a “You are, too” defense?
And why do you equate voting for the war in Iraq to lying, and voting against it into telling the truth?
For the record, Iraq had WMD’s. They used them. That proved they had them. The people who claim that Iraq had no WMD’s are either lying, or just believing someone else’s lies. Sure, you could argue about how much WMD they had, how effective they were, how big of a threat, would Saddam have used them against us, etc. But the “Bush lied” crowd abandons reasonable arguments to stick their fingers in their ears and pretend that Bush just made it all up to get the war he wanted. They won’t settle for saying that the threat of WMD’s from Iraq was not as bad as described. They instead say that Iraq had no WMD’s. It’s intellectually dishonest. In short, it’s lying.
And it’s ironic how much the people who are outraged about how “Bush lied” tell huge whoppers themselves.
Iraq used WMD’s, so the people who thought they didn’t have them were wrong. Sorry if that includes you, your friends, most of the media that you read, and most of the people outside the U.S. But since most intelligence agencies in the world believed that Saddam had WMD’s, I think you’re overstating the case considerably. Since Saddam went to great lengths to get the world to believe that he had huge stockpiles of them, it’s ironic that you want to just accuse all the people who studied their best available intelligence and concluded that Saddam had them of just being liars.
Hardly. Like Kissinger said at the time, it was a pity they couldn’t both lose.
So they only blamed Iraq and Iran both because we were supporting Iraq? Not because, maybe, both sides were at fault in the war? Not only is that unconvincing, it’s a completely irrelevant point. I didn’t mention Saddam using WMD’s to assign blame in that war, but to point out that his use of them proved he had them.
It was Saddam that used the chemical weapons. Don’t fret: Iran had their share of atrocities, such as sending children through minefields to clear the way for their soldiers. But that’s not really relevant to a discussion of WMD’s.
Again, the use of WMD’s was not justification for the war, the fact that he had them, had used them in the past, and was considered likely to use them in the future WAS relevant.
As for your final paragraph, let me compliment you on your ability to be simultaneously wrong, moralizing, self-righteous, and insulting.
tom on March 21, 2008 at 6:28 PM
LOL! Cherry picking ONE poll doesn’t make it “fact”. Especially since the last time they asked the same question was 5 years ago, and since NO other poll has asked the same question. 2 Congressional investigations have already cleared Bush of this charge, anyway.
And since all of the Democrats in 1998 were also claiming that Saddam had WMDs, your desperation is duly noted.
Please try again.
Del Dolemonte on March 21, 2008 at 6:46 PM
Del Dolemonte on March 21, 2008 at 6:51 PM
They also don’t like to “buy a pig in a poke”, nor do they like to hear for 5 years, “the check is in the mail”.
There are not enough Al Q in Iraq to do a genocide as estimates of AQI range from several hundred to a couple of thousand. The only way there could be a genocide is if large numbers of Shiites genocide the Sunnis of visa versa. If they hate each other that much how can they be building a nation together?
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 6:56 PM
I like your 2:10 pm post, but sure I am following you here?
You don’t think we are on the cusp of real political change in Iraq? Sadr saying public he has failed to purge Iraq of the “invaders” being one of the latest indicators of the changes needed to bring Iraq togather, Sadr was a divider.
What if this year is the year it all comes togather? The threat of Surrender in Chief Clinton or Obama getting elected might be just the thing that lights the fire under the keysters of the Iraqi “leaders” and get something real done. What if by this time next year there are only military trainers and advisors in terrorist free and democratic Iraq.
You think Iraqi’s want us gone? Yes and no I think. My predition is, there will be a treaty between the U.S. in Iraq, something along the lines of NATO.
Hog Wild on March 21, 2008 at 7:50 PM
Then we certainly won’t have to worry about a genocide in Iraq, unless the democratic majority in Iraq wants one.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 8:00 PM
Your logic is flawed, and I don’t mean that as a insult. Say Obama get’s elected, he said he would go back into Iraq if he felt the needed to. So instead sticking out a tough situation that is improving daily, we pull out and if we have to plunge our military back into chaos?
Ever wonder why the military folks want to finish the job? A sense of pride, but mainly they don’t want to go back to Iraq to do it all over a second time.
Hog Wild on March 21, 2008 at 8:41 PM
Right on, NoDonkey!!
leftnomore on March 21, 2008 at 10:02 PM
They have been going back over and over again as it is now. Some of them are on a third tour already.
MB4 on March 21, 2008 at 10:42 PM
How many active military people do you actually know?
I know plenty. And none of them want to surrender. They don’t like the situation, they dread deploying again, BUT THEY DO IT. Why? The retirement check waiting for them at the end?
Dream on. As I type this, I personally know a Marine who has extended his contract so he can serve another deployment in Iraq, he was out, but he said “no, I have experience that is useful” and he signed the dotted line again understanding completely what is in store for him. After this deployment, he plans to use his GI Bill to go to college. I could ramble on as to why he made such a choice, but unless you have lived that life it would be a waste of time trying to explain it. I’ll just say that there are people on this planet who value the lives of their friends more than their own.
Know anyone like that? If you don’t, it’s your loss.
Hog Wild on March 22, 2008 at 12:19 AM
Know who are actually in the military right now?
One.
Good for you I guess.
That is so weird. Who would they surrender to?
MB4 on March 22, 2008 at 2:33 AM
Army life?
Been there, done that.
1193.
MB4 on March 22, 2008 at 2:38 AM
Comment pages: