Skip to main content

View Diary: DailyKos supporting Right Wing Talking Points?? (325 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  if i am a republican i am still right here (none)
    it's not a talking point. that's what separates you and me. you are spinning and i am asking whether it makes fuckign sense with all the facts we knew at the time, that this president was being honest with us or that we could trust him. essentially, the republicans are liars, but they aren't lying here. it's possible to look at this situation and go- you know they are using the truth against us here. that's why i made the snark below about after 2000 we knew we could trust bush to be honest, after the rove 2002 memo we knew this wasn't political and the several other points. i can make more. it just stretches credibility for the democrats to say- when even most americans didn't believe it at the time, that bush wasn't going to go to war with this authorization. and if you don't believe me- i can probably go back to look up the polling, but i remember most americans were behind going even at this period of time that the vote happened- which just coincidentally was times to occur at maximum impact for the 2002 elections- that never came across our sides mind? i remember wellstone being called a dead duck for making a no vote because everyone assumed that a no vote was a death sentence with the american electorate politically. i remember the republicans wrapping the vote in patriotism- using anything they could to drum up support. kerry was looking at his 2004 run and the primaries starting up the next year. so come on, let's not play pretend with somehow that we weren't endorsing the war. it's simply not something that someone who is accountable for their actions would claim.  
    •  the idea that kerry voted (none)
      not according to his convictions, but by positioning himself for his 2004 campaign.

      that's actually more damaging to his credibility -- our whole party's credibility -- than anything else.  if that's the conclusion.. there's really no answer to that.   no way.  no how.  it means he's a traitor.  you're asking him to resign his post.

      really... think about that.   on a matter of the most important thing ever.. our national security... you're saying a democrat didn't think about what was best for the country,... you're saying that a democrat was only thinking about what was best for himself.

      ok.. lemme ask you this.  reid voted "yes" on IWR.  why???  he wasn't running for election in 2004.  if the only reasons for voting for IWR were selfish political reasons, why would he do it??

      any ideas??

      "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

      by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:09:43 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  unlike you (none)
        as i have told you before i dont need my leadership to be perfect. i know this doesn't answer your question as to reid- because like all democrats i think he made a calculus based on political expediency and he got burned, and if you were right by the way about the whole thing not being political, i would expect the democrats to have reacted differently than they have until recently. i would have expected a party legitimately acting out of a mistaken assumption and out of convictions to react differently when faced with the fact that their assumptions were wrong- because i would still expect them to react according to those convictions. instead, i have seen mostly hillary clinton type triangualation where kerry said even knowing what he knew in the fall of 2004 he still would have voted for the support of the war. in other words, he would have supported going to war because that's a part of what he knew by the fall of 2004.  however, let me go back to my other point to you- i think we differ in that i dont require my leadership to not make mistakes. i require them to be honest about it and move on. what's damaging to us is that people rightly sense that we are no better than the republicans on this issue. on a further tangent, but one that i think will help you understand my thinking. my mother used to say to me that as a black guy i have to be three times as better as my white counterparts just to get half as far. the democrats have to be better than the republicans in the game. i think trying to parse and write dissertations on how we weren't for the war is not being on our game. on our game, is saying you know what- we made a mistake, and we regret it- for whatever reasons. and now is the time to move forward to change. in other words, what's not allowing us to move forward, is not whether we admit to what is plain to most americans (and politically even if we dont think it is- the fact that they believe it to be true is a big part of the consideration).  whats not allowing us to move forward instead is to admit accountability and then frame the debate going forward. this approach takes the now tarred and feathered corrupt republican leadership off their game.
        •  lets just be clear (none)
          you're saying that our democratic party minority leader in the senate made a decision...

          ... on a matter of our national security... our very safety...

          NOT out of what he believed or personal conviction.

          but he made that decision ...

          ... on a matter of national security... our very safety...

          based on political expediency.

          and you're saying that making a decision on our very safety based on political expediency is forgivable as long as they just fess up afterwards??

          am i hearing you correctly??

          i don't require perfection either, but if i really believed reid based a vote... a vote directly relevant to our National Security on political expediency, i'd be asking him to resign.

          i'm glad the facts dictate otherwise.

          "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

          by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:32:20 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  yes biminicat (none)
            i do believe that the democrats did make a decision on political expediency. as as for facts, you are choosing to ignore any facts that doesn't agree with your thesis that it was a principled decision.

            look, they passed the patriot act without in many cases reading the thing- does that sound like someone thinking about convictions. it took a coaltion of republican and democratic libetarian leaning congress men to shed light on it.

            more importantly, your argument as i said falls a part in the aftermath of having gone to war. if you were correct about your theory that they did it for convictions, i would expect those same convictions to have them acted forcefully to find out what happened once they knew they had been dupped. Thats what people who have been dupped do- they try to address the situation by not continuing along the same road that they started on when they were first lied to. Even if you ignore all the facts on the ground at the time- the rove report, the timing of the vote, the alarms being sounded by those in the community outside of the WH, the inspection reports, the people that bush was using to build up the case for war (all neocons who had been writing about going to war with iraq since the early 90s to reclaim america's "national greatness" that they thought had lost with vietnam) etc. it's hard for your argument to survive the years that followed the vote in which the democrats have continued to act for the sake of political expediency. HRC (at least if the Huffington Post is to be believed) continues to make what was until recently the argument that most Democratic leadership made on the issue.

            until recently when they felt it was safer to do so- they acted although again not in unison to debate a war that should have been debated before going. and for the record, if the democrats were the dups as you seem to argue then why once the war begun did they know sound the alarms then? i mean truly sound the alarms as in a united party on all the talk shows saying one thing- we were lied to by this administration? i would expect most of the subsequent actions by the democrats to support your theories about convictions if you were correct, but they do not.

            •  this is larger than the diary itself (none)
              if you think dems vote on matters of national security not out of personal conviction but out of political expediency, then you really should support a different party.

              that is... assuming you do support a different party.

              just saying...  if you believe that dems voted on a matter of national security out of political expedience that doesn't fall into the category of just being "not perfect."

              that falls more in the category of treason.

              "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

              by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 10:55:21 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  no that falls into political reality (none)
                of the real world political kind. i am not an idealist- i calculate which party is going to represent my interest better and will in general on the whole try to do the right thing more often than not. in short, i believe politics is about power- it can be in the hands of humans or it can be in the hands of the republibots. can the democrats fuck up- yes, does that that somehow mean i need to support somoen else- no. it means i am realistic about who the democrats are. in the full context here- taking what you say into consideration, but also taking the other factors- ie, what did they do after the war started, what we knew going into the vote, what pressures were at play, what have they done on other issues of which they had the chance to show conviction, etc. your approach requires me to look solely at this question out of context of all that we do know. like i said, if you were right, there is no way that it would take until 2005 for kerry when the R's poll numbers are bad to say that he thought the war was a mistake- he didn't know this in the fall of 2004? most of these men and women are not just kind of smart- they are incredibly smart. to believe your narrative of the situation requires that I believe they are stupid. now saying all this, do i believe some part of national security didn't pass through their minds? no- but does that mean i think that was the biggest thing on their mind- i would say for a lot of them it probably wasn't.  the only basis i have for that later comment is human nature. you are being pressured by a lot of forces- most people in the best will probably choose the easiest route.
                •  you don't make political calculations (none)
                  on a matter of national security.

                  that's called treason.

                  that's just my opinion.

                  we're not going to see eye to eye on this.

                  so you get the last word.

                  "I don't think Feingold and Clinton are really that far apart on Iraq." -- Howard Dean, 10/23/05

                  by BiminiCat on Mon Nov 07, 2005 at 11:17:37 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  so in your world view (none)
                    the only choice that is possible is that they made their decisions for precisely the reasons they stated- okay, like i said then explain the post vote behavior by the democrats from 2002 until last week of 2005? if they were acting as you say on convictions - then none of it makes sense b/c we have know for quite sometime that we were being lied to. this is both larger and not larger than what you said here. the part that is not larger is that your argument makes no sense in context of what we know has happened not just then but since then.
                    •  ps - one final point (none)
                      and then i am going to bed b/c i am really not doing work anymore. the thing you must realize is that we are left with real world choices- not perfect world choices. perfect world i would have candidates who are tougher than the ones that we have now. i would also be worth about 100 million dollars and using most of it to do charity work, but that's not the real world. the real world is where i look at people's behaviors and base my judgement on that. i have a friend who always says to me when i do what you are doing- "base your views on what people do, not what they say." the democrats haven't given me any reason since their vote until recently to believe that they weren't acting in a political manner on Iraq issue. i would say the burden is on them to prove me and their critiques wrong going forward (because they are the ones wanting to regain power), and not on me to believe spin about what may or may not have happened in 2002.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site