Team Obama’s character assassination to combat supposed character assassination

posted at 10:40 am on August 28, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

“Slimy.”  “Smear merchant.”  “Character assassin.”  This kind of name-calling tends to undermine an argument against character assassination, especially when the argument comes with no supporting evidence at all.  Yet the Barack Obama campaign feels comfortable with this kind of ad hominem attack on Stanley Kurtz as a means to get him silenced:

The campaign e-mailed Chicago supporters who had signed up for the Obama Action Wire with detailed instructions including the station’s telephone number and the show’s extension, as well as a research file on Kurtz, which seems to prove that he’s a conservative, which isn’t in dispute. The file cites a couple of his more controversial pieces, notably his much-maligned claim that same-sex unions have undermined marriage in Scandinavia.

“Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse,” says the email, which picks up a form of pressure on the press pioneered by conservative talk radio hosts and activists in the 1990s, and since adopted by Media Matters and other liberal groups.

“It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies,” it continues.

So let’s get this straight.  Team Obama calls Kurtz all of these names, and it’s Kurtz who’s the character assassin?  For the second straight time on this topic, Team Obama has delivered a hysterical, shrieking offensive on a topic they’d be better off ignoring.  Earlier this week, they demanded a criminal prosecution against a critic of The One for pointing out his association with unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.  Now they’ve attacked Kurtz through an organized campaign of character assassination.

Team Obama has become so overwrought at the mere thought of criticism that they now overreact on a constant basis.  It’s a measure of the fear in the campaign that they have decided that they cannot abide any criticism at all, and instead of simply responding to it, they attempt to silence it instead.  Worse, they seem to believe that the Department of Justice is a great tool for oppressing such criticism — while Democrats accuse the Bush administration of the same, which much less evidence for their allegations.

And in this case, what has Kurtz done?  He has demanded access to records that should have been public all along to investigate the workings of a program funded at least in part by public funds.  Kurtz wanted to check the records on Obama’s denials of a close working relationship with Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.  In other words, Kurtz attempted to commit the crime of journalism, a crime that seems rare enough as it is when it comes to Obama and his past.

Maybe other journalists should take heed.  If Obama becomes president and they commit the crime of Journalism in the First Degree, how will these same people react with the full weight of the federal government behind them?   If they stoop to character assassination now, what will they do when they have much more powerful tools at their disposal?

Update: As Ed Driscoll notes, Team Obama calls Kurtz a lot of names, while he has defended Ayers as “mainstream” on his website and in comments.  Which deserves more calumny — a reporter or a terrorist?

Update II: Michelle has a good round-up and adds her own thoughts to the hypocrisy of this pre-emptive attack on Kurtz.

Update III: Andrew Malcolm calls this “surprising” at the LA Times, and the Tribune’s Washington bureau has begun reporting on it, too.

Update IV: My friend Guy Benson was on hand to witness what happened:

The experience was surreal, amusing, and chilling. In a matter of hours, a major national campaign had called on its legions to bully a radio show out of airing an interview with a legitimate scholar asking legitimate political questions. Coupled with the Obama campaign’s recent attempts to sic the DOJ on the creators of a truthful political advertisement —which also happened to feature Obama’s relationship with an unrepentant terrorist— last night’s call to action represents an emerging pattern. Any criticism of Obama’s unknown past is to be immediately denounced as a “smear,” and the messenger is to be shut down at all costs. …

Team Obama is fast becoming the campaign that cried “smear.” They labeled the National Right to Life committee “liars” for providing evidence of some unpleasant facts about their candidate’s record on a series of infanticide votes. This tendency to lash out and engage in baseless name-calling not only smacks of desperation; it also may foreshadow an Obama presidency’s strategy in handling unfavorable media reports and sources.

In other words, they’re becoming whiny wimps.  Just what we need in a President.


Related Posts:

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Ed, you failed to quote the line of the email that explains why the journalist, rather than the ‘professor,’ deserves to be calumniated:

“Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears.”

So you see, Ayres is “mainstream,” but Kurtz is a “terrorist” or at least using “terrorist” tactics. Ergo, in smearing Kurtz, the Obama campaign really is denouncing terrorism.

msyb on August 28, 2008 at 11:29 AM

Whoa! There was no way on earth that phrasing was unintentional. Kurtz is a right-wing terrorist smearer? Nice one Barry.

econavenger on August 28, 2008 at 12:06 PM

Nothing new here actually..this si how the far-left debates..over the top name calling..FACTS?..screw ‘em who needs facts when you can just act like a three year old and use vicious name calling?..these are the people whi compare all Republicans to nazis..they draw swastikas on stars of david.

chilling..very chilling

galtg on August 28, 2008 at 12:06 PM

What’s also high on the unintentional comedy scale if you look at the Obama email is that the first thing they throw at Stanley Kurtz to attempt to deligitimize him is that he served on some board with Bill Kristol. So….it’s a problem when a conservative journalist serves on a board with another conservative journalist — but it’s NOT a problem when Barack Obama serves on two boards with an unrepentant terrorist! ooookay.

rockmom on August 28, 2008

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

fossten on August 28, 2008 at 12:07 PM

My only comfort is Joe Biden’s commitment to fight abuse of power /sarc

I believe jim m is correct in that what Obama is doing is NOT illegal. It is despicable though – and as Ed points out – the more disturbing part of this is what Obama would do once he was president to stifle speech (in the cause of defending truth of course).

Besides jim m – if Republicans are guilty of the same thing what does this say about the ‘New Politics’ of The One?

gwelf on August 28, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Wow, jailing a reporter, targeting a journalist and attempting to close down free speech!

I don’t suppose the msm will take note that the jackboot is truly on the other foot.

moxie_neanderthal on August 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM

I’m curious–how are leftists responding to this? I know the Obama sheep don’t care, but is anyone who is so-called progressive and always bleating about free speech saying anything of “Wait a second here… I thought we opposed this stuff?”

Or is it the usual–if a Dem does it, it is right?

I guess what I’m wondering is whether Obama would face any criticism in his own party for this. After all, demonizing Republicans is easy, and those evil Bushitler types need jailing anyway, but is anyone on their side at all concerned?

Vanceone on August 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM

This is really alarming- it raises the question of how far Obama would go as President. God save the Republic!

gmoonster on August 28, 2008 at 12:22 PM

In other words, they’re becoming whiny wimps. Just what we need in a President.

If only. Isn’t Stalinists is a more accurate description?

Thanks for all the updates, btw. Rush is on this now too, tying it to Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals and The Fairness Doctrine.

Maybe Harry Reid will stand up in Congress and condemn private citizen Stanley Kurtz, like he condemned Limbaugh. Oh wait! He can’t, they’re on vacation.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM

funky chicken on August 28, 2008 at 11:56 AM

They said the One doesn’t do well with dissent.

Fasten your seatbelts. The ride is going to get bumpy.

drjohn on August 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM

What it says is that the Democrats are doing the same things that Karl Rove, Rush and others have been doing for awhile.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Vanceone on August 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM

leftists love it. Old time liberals are growing somewhat alarmed by the tactics. It probably helps us greatly that Obama and his camp played the race card on Bill Clinton. Now liberals are willing to listen to us when Obama’s campaign does this crap to McCain and conservatives.

volokh link to a democrat’s take on some Obama stuff if you scroll down

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_08_24-2008_08_30.shtml#1219917291

funky chicken on August 28, 2008 at 12:28 PM

If only. Isn’t Stalinists is a more accurate description?

Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 12:23 PM

+1

funky chicken on August 28, 2008 at 12:30 PM

The Democrats are doing the same thing as Karl Rove, Rush and others? I thought Rove and Rush were supposed to be evil? So that’s what Obama meant by a new kind of politics…

gwelf on August 28, 2008 at 12:30 PM

What it says is that the Democrats are doing the same things that Karl Rove, Rush and others have been doing for awhile.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Really? Come up with ONE specific example of where Rush has tried to silence the opposition. Tick Tock Tick Tock.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 12:30 PM

rockmom on August 28, 2008

Great post!!!

Keemo on August 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM

I’d counter that what Rush encouraged was for Republicans to exercise their right to vote, not to try and squelch anyone else’s. Besides, it’s a little different when the name-calling and incitement come directly from the campaign in lieu of providing its own spokesperson to carry its own water.

Quisp on August 28, 2008 at 12:32 PM

jim m – where’s the evidence that Republicans, Rove, Rush have done the same thing? If they have you can bet the media has been all over it like stink on a monkey.

gwelf on August 28, 2008 at 12:33 PM

This is far worse than anything done on the right and actually reminds me of when Pres Clinton perversely tried to blame right-wing radio for the Oklahoma City bombing so he could win his election. They’re trying to take the terrorist focus off of the actual terrorist and put it on “dangerous right-wing radio.”

It’s some crazy shit being pulled just to keep quiet whatever Obama and Ayers were up to together. There has to be more to this story than just the 60′s when Barry was a baby. Follow the money.

econavenger on August 28, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Al Capone would be proud.

try again later on August 28, 2008 at 12:45 PM

Thanks for reminding me that Kurtz is more than a journalist doing opposition research…not that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself. My fingers got ahead of the brain again.

iconoclast on August 28, 2008 at 12:49 PM

This is really nothing new. The Clintons did the same type of things for years. With the media’s help it can be really effective in hiding the truth. The messiah campaign is just absorbing all their cronies.

kongzilla on August 28, 2008 at 12:52 PM

This was Obama’s “Night of the Long Knives”. And it’s going to wind up crushing him with independents and libertarians. Stanley is no “conservative Alex Jones.” Any one who has read Kurtz work knows he will come across to the rest of America as an even keel, affable, well spoken, conservative scholar who researches the hell out of everything before he speaks/writes. The last thing Obama’s campaign can take is Kurtz on national drive-time radio or FoxNews discussing last nights interview, complete with audio clips from that podcast. So when you think about it, last night was teh awesome.

Lamontyoubigdummy on August 28, 2008 at 12:55 PM

What it says is that the Democrats are doing the same things that Karl Rove, Rush and others have been doing for awhile.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Maybe people like you could show us a couple of examples?
You could maybe point out the lawsuits, the running to the justice dept.?
Links please…

right2bright on August 28, 2008 at 12:55 PM

What it says is that the Democrats are doing the same things that Karl Rove, Rush and others have been doing for awhile.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM

Diversionary Propaganda. When you can’t defend your party’s conduct go on the attack. Make unsubstantiated accusations to confuse the issue…”Oh yeah, well you did it too.” What a pathetic attempt to justify an egregious action.

Is that all ya got?

sdd on August 28, 2008 at 12:56 PM

This was a fundamentally stupid miscalculation by the Obama campaign for any number of reasons. WGN Radio (and TV) is a Chicago institution. It is the farthest thing from second-tier conservative talk radio. Milt Rosenberg is probably the most cerebral and well-regarded “talk show host” in the country. He is emphatically not a red meat talk radio host like, say, Mike Gallagher. WGN is owned by Tribune Media, which also owns the Chicago Tribune and LA Times. Clearly not conservative niche press. Small wonder (as Ed noted) that both papers picked up the story. The Obama campaign may think it’s the 800 lb gorilla when it goes after relatively small-fry players like AIP. But it just fired an artillery barrage at a cornerstone of the mainstream media. Dumb on stilts.

Sarge6 on August 28, 2008 at 1:03 PM

Thanks for reminding me that Kurtz is more than a journalist doing opposition research…not that there is anything wrong with that in and of itself. My fingers got ahead of the brain again.

iconoclast on August 28, 2008 at 12:49 PM

The distinction is that Kurtz is a journalist doing investigative research. That is not the same thing as a campaign doing opposition research.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 1:04 PM

Play Emperor Obama decided he wanted to cross the Rubicon on his big night. The die has been cast.

This is the beginning of the end of his political career.

econavenger on August 28, 2008 at 1:05 PM

Right out of the Hugo Chavez playbook.

If you can’t stop the message, destroy the source of the message.

Remember what Hugo did with RCTV in 2007? Who says Obama won’t do the same if he’s elected.

Pcoop on August 28, 2008 at 1:13 PM

Obama grants imaginary civil rights to terrorists, and takes actual civil rights away from Americans.

Is there such a thing as anticipatory impeachment? I mean, could we get this wrapped up before 2009? We have all the evidence we need, in my opinion.

jeff_from_mpls on August 28, 2008 at 1:17 PM

Wow, jailing a reporter, targeting a journalist and attempting to close down free speech!

I don’t suppose the msm will take note that the jackboot is truly on the other foot.

moxie_neanderthal on August 28, 2008 at 12:12 PM

Um uh your have free speech as long as y’know you say the right things.

-Messiah the Lightwork (d)Totalitarianville

sven10077 on August 28, 2008 at 1:22 PM

Obama and his minions are simply following the Saul Alinsky rules for warefare:

“Wherever possible go outside the experience of the enemy. Here you want to cause confusion, fear and retreat.”

“Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. You can kill them with this. They can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity.”

“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.”

“The threat is generally more terrifying than the thing itself.”

“In a fight almost anything goes. It almost reaches the point where you stop to apologize if a chance blow lands above the belt.”

“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it and polarize it.” (Think Gingrich, Lott and the success of name-calling used by the likes of Bill Clinton, Paul Begala, James Carville, Maxine Waters and others against conservatives and Republicans. Think of how Clinton “enemies” like Paula Jones or Linda Tripp were treated.)

“One of the criteria for picking the target is the target’s vulnerability … the other important point in the choosing of a target is that it must be a personification, not something general and abstract.” (Trent Lott comes to mind. Meanwhile, a former Klansman by the name of Sen. Robert Byrd got away with saying “nigger” on Fox News at least three times, and he still maintains his Senate seat and power.)

“The enemy properly goaded and guided in his reaction will be your major strength.” For instance, Democrats imply conservatives are racists or that Republicans want to kill senior citizens by limiting the growth of the Medicare system, they imply Republicans want to deny kids lunch money without offering real proof. These red-herring tactics work.

Time for conservatives to learn to play hardball before it’s too late.

BrianA on August 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM

Time for conservatives to learn to play hardball before it’s too late.

BrianA on August 28, 2008 at 1:23 PM

I don’t think so this election is different and McCain God help me knows it.

HIS most effective tool has been ridicule and Obama is painted into a corner as concerns moderates…I think we’re doing fine.

sven10077 on August 28, 2008 at 1:29 PM

What it says is that the Democrats are doing the same things that Karl Rove, Rush and others have been doing for awhile.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 12:24 PM

So jim m wants to be the new alphie.

I’ll wait for him to provide a relevant example. {crickets} {silence}

Right_of_Attila on August 28, 2008 at 1:31 PM

In other words, they’re becoming whiny wimps.

No. They’re thugs, in the service of future President Barack Mugabe… Ahem… Obama.

newton on August 28, 2008 at 1:32 PM

Sometimes I wonder if there is more to the Ayers story than just another example of Obama sucking up to lefty scumbags because they will help him succeed. Here you have a sycophantic politician sucking up to admitted terrorist/marxist/trust fund baby Ayers, serving on a board doling out huge amounts of money to fellow-travelers, operating under a completely utilitarian philosophy (leftism), within the milieu of Chicago politics.

Maybe what fear is NOT that Ayers and Obama were butt-buddies but a final audit of the foundation.

Then again, maybe Obamas campaign managers are just as thin-skinned, amateurish, and juvenile as their candidate. Given the guideline “never assume malice when simple incompetence will do”, the second argument is more likely. Either way, Obama is definitely in a box with this one now.

iconoclast on August 28, 2008 at 1:48 PM

I just downloaded the show. Looks like a good one.

What is interesting is that wgn states up front that they asked someone from the Obama campaign to be on the show but they declined.

Here’s the show.

moxie_neanderthal on August 28, 2008 at 1:49 PM

oops. try that link again

Extension 720 Unabridged – 720 WGN – 8-27-08
Listen Now! (mp3) Milt talks with Stanley Kurtz,a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center and a contributor to National Review, about what he’s found in the newly opened Annenberg Challenge archives at the UIC Library.

show

moxie_neanderthal on August 28, 2008 at 1:50 PM

Obama protests too much.

Terrye on August 28, 2008 at 2:13 PM

If Ayers is “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood” along with convicted felon Rezko and racist Rev. Wright…isn’t it high time Obama moved? (And I don’t mean to the White House!)

Seriously, this type of riff-raff can’t be good for Michelle’s children.

Barb Dwyer on August 28, 2008 at 2:39 PM

“At a time of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”
–George Orwell

iurockhead on August 28, 2008 at 3:15 PM

Here’s a start at: http://www.texasobserver.org/article.php?aid=398

In early December 1999, George W. Bush’s chief political strategist, Karl Rove, and Dallas Morning News reporter Wayne Slater squared off in the Manchester, New Hampshire, airport. Rove was angry over a story Slater had written suggesting that it was plausible that Rove was behind the whisper campaign that warned that Senator John McCain–then soaring in the GOP presidential primary polls–might any day unravel, because he had been under so much pressure when he was tortured as a POW in Vietnam.

In a 700-word article that Slater said wasn’t the most significant thing he’d written about Rove, he referred to questionable campaign tactics attributed to Rove: teaching College Republicans dirty tricks; spreading a rumor that former Governor Ann Richards was too tolerant of gays and lesbians; circulating a mock newspaper that featured a story about a former Democratic governor’s drinking and driving when he was a college student; spreading stories about Jim Hightower’s alleged role in a contribution kickback scheme; and alerting the press to the fact that Lena Guerrero, a rising star in the Texas Democratic Party, had lied about graduating from college. Rove was explicitly linked by testimony and press reports to all but the gay and lesbian story; the college incident had been so widely reported for 15 years that it was essentially part of the common domain. Slater also reported that primary candidates Steve Forbes and Gary Bauer blamed the Bush camp for the smear campaign.

“He said I had harmed his reputation,” Slater recalls. Says another reporter who was traveling with Bush, “It was pretty heated. They were nose to nose. Rove was furious and had his finger in Slater’s chest.” Adds the same reporter, “What was interesting then is that everyone on the campaign charter concluded that Rove was responsible for rumors about McCain.”

That Karl Rove, who according to the White House press office is not giving interviews, hasn’t always abided by the Marquess of Queensbury rules of political engagement is not exactly breaking news. As long ago as 1989, when Rove collaborated with an FBI agent investigating Hightower, the then-Texas agriculture commissioner complained about Rove’s “Nixonian dirty tricks.”

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 3:31 PM

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 3:31 PM

That’s it??!!! That is your proof that the GOP has tried to shutter free speech and used lawfare to silence opponents??!!!

dude, you need to buy a clue!

iconoclast on August 28, 2008 at 3:45 PM

William Ayers is that a bus I hear backing up…. beep beep beep

Dr Evil on August 28, 2008 at 3:47 PM

And this:

Published on Saturday, March 1, 2003 by the Toronto Star

Why Does Bush Push to Silence Free Speech?

by Ramsey Clark

Former U.S. attorney-general Ramsey Clark met with Iraqi President Saddam Hussein last Sunday. He wrote this commentary exclusively for the Toronto Star.

Should a free person be afraid to meet with a demonized “brutal dictator”?

If not, how do we hope to learn, understand, act to avoid violence and war? If our (U.S.) government says, “You will only be deceived and used, a dupe, if you meet,” doesn’t this reveal an intention to exercise arbitrary control over information on which public opinion is formed that might affect government plans?

Why did the White House object to the interview with President Saddam Hussein by Dan Rather, seek to interject rebuttal and rebuke at different points in the interview, and then complain that a person who lies should not be allowed to speak in the media?

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM

Your go-to guy for paranoid complaints about intimidation and an infringement of free speech is Ramsey Clark? RU serious?

Rushing to Saddam’s side after the war was par for Clark’s course. He’s defended a star-studded roster of mass-murderers: Serbian tyrant Milosevic, former Milosevic henchman Radovan Karadzic, a Rwandan pastor accused of orchestrating the slaughter of thousands of Tutsis, al Qaeda terrorist Mohamed Al-Owhali, as well as Nazi war criminals Karl Linnas and Jack Riemer.

He also defended Lynn Stewart.

What a this has to do with Karl Rove or Rush Limbaugh is beyond me- waaaaaaay beyond. Maybe if I moved to your planet it would make sense.

Buy Danish on August 28, 2008 at 4:31 PM

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 4:10 PM

jim m, you blockhead. We were at war with Saddam Hussein, though a temporary truce was in place. And to cite Ramsey Clark is beneath contempt.

Finally, tho I know this will come a shock–Saddam Hussein was not a citizen of the USA. Nor was he residing in the USA (legally or illegally). So USA free speech issues don’t really concern him. And plenty of people were more than happy to talk about/defend him here at home without being threatened legally.

c’mon! Are you the best that the Obamanation has to offer? Isn’t there anyone who supports Obama’s contemptible attempts to stifle dissent with a little more to offer than this blockhead???

iconoclast on August 28, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Uum, the Iraq war began three weeks after that interview.

And don’t you remember Scooter Libby?

And the right of free speech only applies to acts of the Government. There are no US Constitutional issues involved in this situation.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 5:33 PM

Uum, the Iraq war began three weeks after that interview.

And don’t you remember Scooter Libby?

And the right of free speech only applies to acts of the Government. There are no US Constitutional issues involved in this situation.

No, we remained at war with Iraq throughout the 90′s. There was only a truce and a cessation of hostilities. Not any declaration of peace until Hussein was deposed. Even as a hostile foreign nation (accomplices in the ’93 bombing, attempting to assassinate Bush ’41, shooting at our planes, etc., etc.) the Executive Branch has the responsibility and the right to control access to that nation and its leaders.

Scooter Libby? What does Libby have to do with this thread?

When Team Barry attempts to use the power of the Justice Department to stifle free speech that involves the power of the government. And the actions of Team Barry with regard to Kurtz are a chilling harbinger of what kind of government we can expect from Team Barry.

iconoclast on August 28, 2008 at 6:37 PM

Oh so wrong on so many levels, iconoclast.

A request for a Justice Department investigation is not governmental action.

And the second war with Iraq did not start until March 20, 2003.

You pretty clearly have not been paying attention for quite some time.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM

You pretty clearly have not been paying attention for quite some time.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM

The voice of experience…

hindmost on August 28, 2008 at 7:08 PM

Oh so wrong on so many levels, iconoclast.

A request for a Justice Department investigation is not governmental action.

And the second war with Iraq did not start until March 20, 2003.

You pretty clearly have not been paying attention for quite some time.

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 6:54 PM

He hasn’t? Where have you been?
The first Gulf war ended in a ceasefire, not a peace treaty (kind of like N Korea). So the US remained not-at-peace with Iraq until 2003.

Count to 10 on August 28, 2008 at 7:45 PM

JIM-

The Messiah is a US Senator. For him to even ask that should result in him being hauled in front of a committee for Ethics violations

Sir Andrew on August 28, 2008 at 7:54 PM

So, then, why did Bush need to ask Congress for a declaration of war against Iraq in 2002?

jim m on August 28, 2008 at 8:25 PM

Gestapo tactics ! Must drink the kool-aid. Must believe what “the one” says.

christene on August 28, 2008 at 8:29 PM

At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies,” it continues.

Well, I understand the Obama camp was offered equal air time for “sane, honest rebuttal….but they declined the invitation. Hmmmm…..wat up wid dat??

crazy texas on August 28, 2008 at 8:44 PM

jim m

it wasn’t a declaration of war. It was specifically authorization for use of military force against Iraq. Since we were technically still at war with Iraq from Desert Storm days (and still using military force against Iraq throughout the years of sanctions), the authorization was effectively a green light for major military action.

iconoclast on August 28, 2008 at 8:46 PM

progressives oppose free speech

eh on August 29, 2008 at 9:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 2