Daily Kos

Hart: Dems Need To Admit Mistake

by cscs

Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 12:36:13 PM PDT

Gary Hart's got a great post today over on HuffPost:

It is a great wonder that war opponents, including increasing numbers of Democratic "leaders," are so silent. Some of the most visible simply believe the invasion of Iraq, which they endorsed, has been mismanaged, that more troops (not fewer) are needed! Even today, they seem untroubled by the false statements and manipulated intelligence of the administration. The most difficult political statement in the English language is: I made a mistake.
He continues:

Speaking only for myself, I will find it very difficult to support any Democratic "leader" who remains silent at this critical moment but who wants to be president in 2008. There are defining moments in political careers and in national life where true character is revealed, where moral authority is achieved, or forfeited. Recall Dante's well-known warning that a special place is reserved in hell for those who, in times of moral crisis, preserve their neutrality.

He must be reading Armando!

Hart also has some things to say about the history of protest, and why dissent is so important to our country.

Check out the whole thing.

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 41 comments

  •  Admit a Mistake (none / 0)

    and lose.  The Media and GOP are waiting.

    I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

    by BiminiCat on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 12:38:47 PM PDT

    •  The people will understand! (none / 1)

      That what this is all about. Bush lied to the lawmakers of our country. They didn't make a mistake, they were lied to by the administaration and the leaders of the intelligence community. I didn't make a mistake, except in that I believed the lies which were made under oath before congress. It's that simple and the people will understand.

      by Tomtech on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 12:44:22 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Maybe, maybe not (4.00 / 3)

      There's a "message vacuum" on Iraq right now.  The majority don't believe the Republican message but the Democrats aren't putting a message out at all.  If someone can step into that vacuum, they will get pummeled no doubt, but they will also automatically get the sharp attention of those creating the vacuum--i.e. the majority.  We are at a crucial juncture and I don't think the Ds are stepping up to the plate.

      When you understand why you dismiss all the other gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

      by RequestedUsername on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 12:49:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Mistake (4.00 / 2)

      I think after 5 years of the lies, the crassness, the "I need to get back to my life" politics of the Republicans, the public is ready to hear someone simply call Iraq for the clusterfuck it really is.

      It's not that hard: "We believed the President. We made a mistake."

      Or, we can go your way, and keep sending our troops to their death in Iraq.

      If that's the choice, if the choice is between calling for an end to Iraq and losing an election, and "staying the course" knowing more and more people will die for NOTHING (What Noble Cause?), well, I'll take losing elections.

      I need to be able to sleep at night.

      But I don't think we'll lose.

      by cscs on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:00:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But do you believe (none / 0)

        the Democratic establishment in both houses of Congress actually did believe the President, that the mushroom cloud was looming without an invasion?

        I don't.

        I think each one of them knew this was a lost cause and an unnecessary war.  If they came out and admitted they made a mistake by voting for the war, wouldn't they also have to admit it wasn't really a mistake, but instead an intentional PR choice, so that they didn't look weak?

        Admitting you make a mistake, or admitting you do anything for PR value is an immediate invitation to question any politician's judgment.  And even though we naturally do it every day, the appearance that their knowledge, ethics, morals and expertise in any area of public policy are as important to the perception of strength as, well, holding assault weapons and firing them at small animals.  (To the knuckle-dragger or insecure, that is.)

        Hate isn't a value.

        by deep6 on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:12:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Bay of Pigs (4.00 / 5)

      Admitting he was wrong about the Bay of Pigs helped President Kennedy in the end.

      Take the medicine now, or have the surgery later.

      Editor
      blog.oh02.com

      by ignatz on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:11:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Vietnam (none / 1)

      Scores of people in congress admitted they were wrong about Vietnam, and that the Gulf of Tonkin vote was a mistake.  You know probably an equal amount feel the same way today about Iraq.  They just don't have the guts to say so.

      Shill, Shill, Shill.

      by Paleo on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:37:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Admitting a Mistake (none / 1)

        sometimes takes no guts at all.

        i kind of thought mehlman admitting repugs were wrong to not support civil rights was a particularly insincere ploy on their part.

        the logic is a catch-22.

        they should admit a mistake because it's the right thing to do politically.

        and yet they don't have the guts to do it cause they're too worried about doing the right thing politically.

        the thing is.... this isn't viet nam.

        I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

        by BiminiCat on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:55:54 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  why not say the obvious? (none / 0)

    Why won't these Dems admit invading Iraq was a bad idea?

    What will they lose for speaking the truth?

    If you are interested in the politics of Proviso Township in Cook County, Illinois, visit Proviso Probe.

    by Carl Nyberg on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 12:40:01 PM PDT

  •  C'mon, Gary, get with the program! (4.00 / 2)

    He's probably feeling dissed because Bill and Hill haven't called him in a while.  They would have straightened him out...

    "Look, Gary, we have to seem tough on national defense and national security and if that takes sacrificing a few thousand of our own guys and three   hundred billion in tax dollars, so be it!  We must outflank the Republicans!"

    Triangulation, Gary.  That's the name of the game.

    Morals?  Ethics?  Integrity?  Go fuck yourself.

    by Bob Johnson on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 12:40:47 PM PDT

    •  can i crosspost this (none / 0)

      at freerepublic.com?

      I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

      by BiminiCat on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 02:00:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Steal what you like (none / 0)

        However, it's not surprising to find out that you hang out there.

        by Bob Johnson on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 06:19:12 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  never been there (none / 0)

          it's only a guess, they'd love to hear about how horrible bill clinton was and how he stood for nothing at all.

          you would fit right in.

          I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

          by BiminiCat on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 06:34:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My my my... (none / 0)

            A bitter little person, aren't you?

            by Bob Johnson on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 08:26:54 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  not at all (none / 0)

              simply acknowledging that your comment would fit right in at freerepublic.com is hardly a sign of bitterness.

              now blaming democrats for the policies of repugs, now THAT might be a sign of bitterness.   sure enough.  you know what i mean?   the kind of bitterness that blinds one to subtle yet important distinctions.  where everything just gets bundled together in a jumble of hatred.

              yep.  

              I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

              by BiminiCat on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 08:52:32 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Project much? (none / 0)

                ...

                by Bob Johnson on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 08:57:25 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  no. again. not at all (none / 0)

                  up thread, you say, clinton stands for nothing.  No Morals.  No Ethics.   No Integrity.  

                  taking you at face value.

                  do you blame dems for the repugs taking us into iraq???   if certain dems had morals, ethics, or integrity, they could have stopped the neo-cons, now couldn't they???

                  that's what i thought.

                  so.  you blame dems for the fact that america is now paying the consequences for repug policies.

                  not projecting at all.

                  I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

                  by BiminiCat on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 09:10:52 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Again, you project your thoughts onto me. (none / 0)

                    My beef with the Clintons is that in the case of Iraq, their continued political calculations are coldly cynical.

                    Nowhere did I say or imply that they got us into Iraq.  That's that litle vpice in your head.  Adjust the volume on that sucker.

                    But to calculate political positions while people are dying is just too damn cynical for me to accept.

                    And I don't for a minute believe that Hillary Clinton thinks thins are going swimmingly in Iraq.  Hell, she was cheering Bush during his State of the Union when he was describing our "victories" in Iraq.

                    Pathetic.

                    She's an extremely bright person.  But her political cynicism is more than I can stomach.

                    by Bob Johnson on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 09:31:13 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  So are you pulling back from the (none / 0)

                      No Integrity No Morals No Ethics thing??  you don't believe hillary would have gotten us into iraq so maybe there are some morals there, some integrity, some ethics??  maybe just a little bit??

                      cause what i was responding to here was your little No Integrity No Morals No Ethics/ go fuck yourself tirade.

                      clear this up real quick.  do you really think the clintons have no morals no integrity and no ethics???

                      I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

                      by BiminiCat on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 10:00:52 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I'm no fan of the Clintons (none / 0)

                        And I have made that clear here for a very long time.

                        They're triangulators.  Which is fine for most things (though I do have problems with it).  But playing politics with war is over the line.

                        And I believe that's precisely what they're doing.

                        So sue me.

                        by Bob Johnson on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 10:04:58 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  blah blah blah (none / 0)

                          you didn't really answer the question.

                          i happen to think the clintons have integrity, morals and ethics.  so sue me.

                          oh, and if you think hagel or feingold aren't also triangulating, then i have a bridge to sell you.

                          funny how neither of them were saying what they're saying now back when the polls were different.  oh sure, both criticized the war, (meh, i think biden and hillary have also criticized the war too, but you don't buy their criticism)  but it's only AFTER the polls shift that they start talking about immediate withdrawal or dates, and such.  

                          but you know, i carry no truck with feingold, the guy is a very cool guy, i think he's making the right move for feingold.  i think he's basically sincere if not also cognizant of shifting public opinion.   but i don't try to make some ludicrous claim that the move he's making isn't aware of political realities.  that it's somehow politically pure.

                          in contrast, i am convinced that hagel is insincere.  if he wasn't calling for "get out now" before polls shifted, i genuinely believe calling for it now is exactly what you are blaming the clintons of.  testing the waters, and THEN crafting his message to suit public opinion.

                          this is precisely where your arguments about the clintons go poof.  if they were smart.  you say they are very bright.  if they're, as you claim, triangulators.  if these things are true, they really would have announced a "pull out of iraq now" strategy by now.

                          now that the polls have shifted, you can say they're wrong, but you cannot say they're triangulating.  or playing politics with with war.

                          that would be logically incoherent.

                          I want Lamont to win, but I won't cry when he doesn't.

                          by BiminiCat on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 10:34:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Look.... (none / 0)

                            Quit projecting your insecurities on me.

                            Nowhere do I claim that Hagel is NOT triangulating.  In fact, I suggest he is shifting for political purposes in another post.

                            As for Feingold, good on him.  I don't know his motives either, but he did not support the war resolution so he probably gets a pass.

                            That said, I don;t trust the Clintons because they toe the DLC line... and that line is all about triangulating.

                            Bill Clinton went from trying to open the militray to gays (and having his ass handed to him by senators from his own party) to supporting prayer in the public school classroom.

                            He may be a great politician, but he didn't do much for the party.  The Clintons have always been about the Clintons.  Period.

                            And the DLC approach (articulated by Evan Bayh over and over) is that "Democrats must be tough on national security."

                            That's why Hillary hasn't shifted positions.

                            It's purely political.

                            And playing politics while people are losing their lives doesn't wash in my book.

                            You can have the Clintons.  I've seen enough to know what I'm looking at.

                            by Bob Johnson on Fri Aug 19, 2005 at 09:28:58 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

  •  Hart '08! (none / 0)

    Think there's any chance of it?

    Have I ever told you about my poor memory?

    by ignorant bystander on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:04:38 PM PDT

  •  Why should we admit to a mistake. (none / 1)

    Bush is the one who made it. The mistake in my opinion is not having balls to call bull#$%^% on what they are doing and not doing in Iraq and the losing War in Afganistan.

    I feel that we should be pressuring the Repugs that voted and love this failure, ("the fantastic success") or something that Bush called it, by mocking them for what they have done. Why do we have to apoligize for anything? This is a Bushco operation, and they are responsible.

    "These guys are biggest bunch of lying crooks I have ever seen" John Kerry

    by alnc on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:09:15 PM PDT

    •  catastrophic success (none / 0)

      The Democrats have failed to mock Bush properly.  It's a major failure.  Hopefully they can recognize that the only success he has had is rolling Dem politicians, his actuall efforts have been pathetic.

      It's arguable that any Democrat really got to vote for the war.  The vote had conditions that were not met by the preznit.  The only democrats that really own it are the ones that are constantly defending it.

      I think that the apology based on the fact that they should have known that Bush would screw things up is a very reasonable and profitable approach.  

      by unterhausen on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 02:20:42 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mea culpa (none / 0)

    This is exactly what I've been saying.  Do any of them have the courage and integrity to do so?  How long can they keep sticking their heads in the sand?

    Shill, Shill, Shill.

    by Paleo on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:35:27 PM PDT

  •  Love Hart (none / 0)

    He would have made a better candidate than Mondale or Dukakis.

    Thanks!

    (0.00,-3.13) "I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."

    by Steve4Clark on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 01:55:11 PM PDT

  •  Draft Gary Hart for U.S. Senate! (none / 0)


    We need his voice back in the U.S. Senate.

    That's the problem with the Democratic Party right now.  

    by NewAmerica on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 02:28:22 PM PDT

  •  Mad at Kerry too (none / 0)

    Kerry DEFINITELY understood it was a mistake, but he refused to come out and say so clearly during his campaign.  It would have massively helped the Democratic party today if he had.

    And don't get me started on Hilary.  I will not vote for her in 08 because of her Iraq position.

    by marccleveland on Thu Aug 18, 2005 at 03:44:41 PM PDT

Permalink | 41 comments