Yesterday, George W. Bush took a page out of the wingnut playbook: he quoted Democratic leaders' past statements to smear them:
"Some Democrats who voted to authorize the use of force are now rewriting the past," Bush said. "They're playing politics with this issue and they are sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy. That is irresponsible."
But a closer inspection of the Democrats' quotes reveals, in fact, that Bush distorted the Democrats' words - words that clearly show that it is Bush who is "rewriting the past."
The AP reported on yesterday's speech:
Iraq and a host of other problems, from the bungled response to Hurricane Katrina to the indictment of a senior White House official in the
CIA leak investigation, have taken a heavy toll on the president. Nearing the end of his fifth year in office, Bush has the lowest approval rating of his presidency and a majority of Americans say Bush is not honest and they disapprove of his handling of foreign policy and the war on terrorism. Heading for Asia, Bush hoped to improve his standing on the world stage.
"Reasonable people can disagree about the conduct of the war but it is irresponsible for Democrats to now claim that we misled them and the American people," Bush said.
He quoted pre-war remarks by three senior Democrats as evidence of that Democrats had shared the administration's fears that were the rationale for invading Iraq in 2003. Bush did not name them, but White House counselor Dan Bartlett filled in the blanks.
_"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons." — Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va.
_"The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as (Saddam Hussein) is in power." — Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich.
_"Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion." — Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., then the Democratic whip.
First, let's point out that Bush is now plagiarizing a theme - using distorted Democratic quotes to justify the war - developed by:
Nice to see where the intellectual home of this administration resides.
Next, let's take a look at each of these quotes; do they show that the Democrats supported this war?
First, Jay Rockefeller, whose remarks were made on the floor of the Senate on October 10, 2002:
There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. And that may happen sooner if he can obtain access to enriched uranium from foreign sources -- something that is not that difficult in the current world. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.
But why was Rockefeller voting for this resolution? What did he expect would happen? What did he want the administration to do? Read further:
Two months ago, or even a month ago, I would have been reluctant to support this resolution. At the time, it appeared that the Administration’s principal goal was a unilateral invasion of Iraq, without fully exploring every option to resolve this peacefully, without trying to enlist the support of other countries, and without any limitation on the use of U.S. force in the Middle East region. The original use-of-force resolution the White House sent to the Congress was far too broad in its scope, and ignored the possibility that diplomatic efforts might just be able to resolve this crisis without bloodshed.
Moreover, it appeared the Administration planned to cut back its efforts in the war on terrorism and shift all its attention and resources to Iraq. That would be a tragic mistake.
I believe the war against global terrorist networks remains the greatest current threat to the security of the American homeland and to our forces overseas, as we have seen in Kuwait earlier this week. America cannot be diverted or distracted from our war on terrorism.
In the past month or so, we have begun to see an encouraging shift in the Administration’s approach. The President stated earlier this week that war is neither imminent nor unavoidable. The Administration has assured us that whatever action we take toward Iraq, it will not be permitted to divert resources or attention from the war on terrorism. And Secretary Powell has been working with the United Nations Security Council to put together a new resolution to make clear that Iraq must disarm or face the consequences.
...
At this point, America’s best opportunity to move the United Nations and Iraq to a peaceful resolution of this crisis is by making clear the U.S. is prepared to act on our own, if necessary, as one nation, indivisible. Sometimes the rest of the world looks to America not just for the diversity of our debate, or the vitality of our ideals, but for the firm resolve that the world’s leader must demonstrate if intractable global problems are to be solved.
And so, that is the context in which I am approaching this vote. This resolution does authorize the use of force if necessary.
Saddam Hussein represents a grave threat to the United States, and I have concluded we must use force to deal with him if all other means fail. That is the core issue, and whether we vote on it now, or in January, or in six months time, that is the issue we all have to confront.
War, if it comes to that, will cost money I dearly wish we could use for other domestic priorities, to address the very real needs that West Virginia and other states face in this tough economy. But ultimately, defending America’s citizens from danger is a responsibility whose costs we must bear.
But this is not just a resolution authorizing war; it is a resolution that could provide a path to peace.
I hope that by voting on this resolution now, while the negotiations at the United Nations are continuing, this resolution will show to the world that the American people are united in our resolve to deal with the Iraqi threat. And it will strengthen the hand of the Administration in making a final effort to try to get the U.N. to deal with this issue. Given the difficulty of trying to build a coalition in the United Nations, I could not, in good conscience, tie the President’s hands.
The Administration is in negotiations on which the safety and security of all Americans depend; I believe we must give the President the authority he will need if there is any hope to bring those negotiations to a successful conclusion.
So, Mr. President, I will vote for the Lieberman/McCain resolution. Preventing a war with Saddam Hussein -- whether now or later -- must be our top priority, and I believe this resolution will strengthen the president’s hand to resolve this crisis peacefully.
Rockefeller clearly states here that war is not inevitable. He is clearly advocating for strong international inspections. He is giving Bush the tools he needs to resolve this issue diplomatically, and he is only advocating for the use of force as a last result. Bush's use of his words is a blatant distortion that can only be accurately described as a lie.
Next, let's look at Carl Levin. Josh Marshall has had plenty to say about the Republican smear of Levin, but let's look at the original quote, which aired on CNN's Late Edition all the way back in December of 2001. Remember, this is well before the administration's fall of 2002 push for the war:
BLITZER: And very briefly, Senator Kyl, your colleague, Joe Lieberman, minced no words earlier today on one of the Sunday morning programs when he specifically said that the next target indeed has to be Saddam Hussein. Listen to what he had to say.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN (D), CONNECTICUT: The fact is that the war against terrorism cannot end before Saddam Hussein is out of power in Iraq, because he is the world's most powerful terrorist.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
BLITZER: Do you agree with Senator Lieberman, Senator Kyl?
KYL: Yes. Whether he's the next target or not, we can't finish this war without having dealt with him, that's correct.
BLITZER: What about that, Senator Levin?
LEVIN: I agree, but exactly the way Senator Kyl put it. The war against terrorism will not be finished as long as he is in power. But that does not mean he is the next target.
And the commitment to do that, it seems to me, could be disruptive of our alliance that still has work to do in Afghanistan. And a lot will depend on what the facts are in various places as to what terrorist groups are doing, and as to whether or not we have facts as to whether or not the Iraqis have been involved in the terrorist attack of September 11, or whether or not Saddam is getting a weapon of mass destruction and is close to it. So facts will determine what our next targets are.
BLITZER: All right. Senators stand by, we have to take a quick break.
Levin is clearly doubtful of a use of force against Iraq at that time. He is unsure of any role Saddam had in 9-11. He is, at that time, unsure of Saddam's WMD capability. Bush's quote of Levin is, at best, highly misleading. Furthermore, look at what else Levin said during that interview:
[BLITZER]: And, Senator Levin, let me begin with you. It looks like the military campaign in Afghanistan may be over. It's all but a mopping- up operation, even though the U.S. troops have still not found Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar, the leader of Taliban.
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: Well, I think it's premature to even reach that conclusion. There are literally hundreds of miles of caves and tunnels in those mountains. And they can be sealed so that we can't even get to parts of them. And there are escape routes.
And the things I have worried about the most are those escape routes out on the Pakistan side. We talked to, when I was there with Senator Warner, we talked to President Musharraf of Pakistan about those routes. There are about 150 trails going up the mountains from Pakistan, where those caves can be supplied from the Pakistan side, and there are possible escape options there as well.
So, I think we should realize this is going very, very well. The opposition forces are doing an extremely good job with our people on the ground. We've got a lot of heroes and heroines over there.
But I think it is still a ways to go before we can say that we have actually done the job finally in Afghanistan. And then, after that, there is a lot of work to do against terrorism around the world, not just Al Qaeda.
Prophetic, wouldn't you say?
Finally, here's the full transcript of Harry Reid's short appearance on CNN from September 18, 2002:
[WOODRUFF:] Well, just a short while ago with -- I spoke with the number two Democrat in the Senate, Majority Whip Harry Reid. And I started by asking him if it's true, as the White House claims, that Democrats are trying to reignite partisan politics with their counteroffensive on the economy?
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
SEN. HARRY REID (D), NEVADA: You know, we have a big country. We have lots of problems in this country. We need to focus on Iraq. And I think we're doing that very well. We're joining with the president in doing something about Saddam Hussein. But that does not take away from the fact that we have an economy that is staggering, faltering. We have so many problems in this economy that we must address them. And I think it's important that we do that. I think the American people, the people in Nevada when I go home, there are few questions about Iraq. There are lots of questions about why jobs are being lost, why employment benefits have not been extended, why we don't do something about prescription drugs, why the education system in the sixth largest school district in America is in trouble? We need do things to help that.
That's what the American people want. And we need to refocus this administration's domestic policies. They don't seem to have any. And we're going to do what we can to have them refocus on that.
WOODRUFF: Well, when Senator Trent Lott heard Senator Daschle's speech, he said where's the plan? He said it's one thing for Democrats to criticize, but there's no alternative there.
REID: Oh, I think that is so foolish. I mean, I just think that's unbelievable. We have problems in this economy that are directed toward the administration. This administration can no longer blame anyone else. They've been in office for over 18 months. They have to take control of the economy. It's their problem.
The reason we're not passing appropriation bills, it goes back to the administration. They won't let the Republican leadership of the House move any of those appropriation bills. Why have we done something about bankruptcy? Because they won't let us. Election reform, they won't let us. It's tied up in conference. Terrorism insurance, tied up in conference.
If -- we could go through a list of 10 more things that they won't let us do. We're not moving because the administration has a one track mind, and that's Iraq. And they've got to have more than one track mind because the economy is stumbling, staggering, faltering.
WOODRUFF: Senator, on the subject of Iraq, the president is wanting a quick vote in Congress. Secretary Rumsfeld today called for a quick vote. Are Democrats apparently all just jumping on this bandwagon? Or there is going to be a real debate, the kind that the American people deserve on this?
REID: As you know when his father went into Iraq, we had a very good debate. Some said one of the best debates in the last 40 years in Congress. We're going to have a debate. But I think we have to acknowledge what's gone on in Iraq. Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the president's approaching this in the right fashion. He's now trying to get the international community to join. Secretary Powell is basically living in New York, working with international community. And we have made progress.
WOODRUFF: But where are the Democratic, I guess, dissenters is my -- or are there any?
REID: Well, I think there are a few people that are going to raise some questions. But this is something that is important to the country, to the world. And we're not going to be dissenting just to dissent. If there's some issues that we need to talk about, we can certainly do that. I mean, there will be issues after we get the resolution. Right now, we're kind of speaking in a vacuum. The Democratic leadership and the Republican leadership, House, and Senate met with the president today. They talked in some generalities, but even today, I don't think the administration knows what they want to do. To get to -- to be very direct and specific, if we wanted to invade Iraq, it's going to take months to get that ready, not days, or weeks. So this isn't anything that's going to happen tomorrow. I think we should get this resolution out of the way. Maybe it would help the administration focus on the domestic policy if we did that.
WOODRUFF: And -- but in essence just quickly, Senator, Democrats are almost prepared to give the president a blank check here.
REID: Oh, I don't think you're going to see blank check. And I don't think the president will ask for a blank check.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
Let's be blunt: Reid was suckered. The president took the resolution and used as a blank check, even if it never was.
But look at how blatantly Bush has distorted Reid. Reid was specifically praising Bush's efforts, at the time, to get international support for dealing with Saddam. How could anyone possibly think this quote stand in support of Bush near-unilateral war of choice?
No one could. Bush is a liar - same as Rush, same as Beck, same as the rest of the wingnuts.
For a while, it seemed that Bush would play fast and loose with the truth about his, pushing the envelope as far as it could go; his acolytes in the right-wing media machine would then push through into actual lying while Bush pretended to be above the fray.
No more - Bush is now doing his own dirty work.