Skip to main content

Better late than never, I guess:

WASHINGTON — Rep. Tom Cole, in a candid new assessment of the state of the Republican Party, says the GOP lost its majorities in the House and Senate because of the Iraq war and calls for the party to abandon former President George W. Bush’s doctrine of unprovoked aggression....

"Experience suggests that the Bush doctrine of 'pre-emptive' war is ill-suited to America’s values, traditions and democratic institutions. It ought to be discarded."

Amazing what an ass-whuppin' at the polls will do to readjust your views about making your own reality. And about what, exactly, is "ill-suited to America's values."

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:30 AM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  If its against American values why didn't you (16+ / 0-)

    oppose it at the time. Oh that's right, you're a republican, so you're not well versed in American values.

    Repent. The end is extremely f*cking nigh.--28 days later

    by voroki on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:31:31 AM PDT

      •  Well... (5+ / 0-)

        On the AUMF against Iraq, House Dems voted against by something like 120-80. In the Senate it was about an even split.

        "All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason. -Abraham Lincoln

        by happy camper on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:46:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Besides ... (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          snazzzybird, nathguy, Egalitare

          ... that's only of limited relevance. Just because some Democrats voted for the war doesn't mean it was OK for the Republicans to be for it.

          Fight until we win. Then we can begin arguing about the details. - Kwickkick (RIP) 2009

          by RickMassimo on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:54:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  some Dems went for it, All GOP did. (3+ / 0-)

            Karl Rove ran the 2004 election cycle on the war

            George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

            by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:19:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And let us not forget (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              nathguy

              that AUMF was used to do a lot of things that a) were wrong, b) were wrong enough that they weren't part of the original debate, and c) were wrong enough that the Bush admin saw fit to lie about them.

              I think the GOP was in denial about this. I think the Dems whom Rove basically blackmailed into going along on the AUMT were in denial. But that doesn't let the Bush admin off the hook.

              Have you heard? The vice president's gone mad. - Bob Dylan, 1966

              by textus on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:18:47 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  29-21 (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          newfie, nathguy

          29-21, dems in the Senate.

           Remember that the antiwar movement was robust before the dems decided to lie supine. Once the war started, any opposition was painted as terrorist sympathizers and the dems wilted.

          Hal C.

          •  No Shit Sherlock (0+ / 0-)

            "Experience suggests that the Bush doctrine of 'pre-emptive' war is ill-suited to America’s values, traditions and democratic institutions. It ought to be discarded."

            "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." Barack Obama August 5, 2008

            by thefretgenie on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:54:10 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Yup. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            nathguy

            "The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

            "The all-white American Media-where the REAL questions of guilt or innocence are decided."

            by lyvwyr101 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:22:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Um...... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Calamity Jean

          "Experience suggests that the Bush doctrine of 'pre-emptive' war is ill-suited to America’s values, traditions and democratic institutions. It ought to be discarded."

          I thought we sorta did that "discarding" thing by handing John McCain his gluteus maximus in November.

          Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

          by dweb8231 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 12:57:12 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  What did most of the usual suspect Dems do (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Thomas Twinnings, renzo capetti

        Is more accurate. We have a sizeable number of Progressive Dems who over time "do the right thing" consistently.

        Swing seats with most Blue Dogs are always going to be a headache. There's no getting around the fact that there will for the foreseeable future (the next couple of election cycles) be a solid 1/3 of the electorate that gets spooked when the right yells one of their favorite buzz killers: socialism, deficit, life, winning, etc. loud and long enough.

        We have to redouble our efforts at reminding those voters that our opponents were wrong, not just the previous election cycle, but for most of the past 3 decades.

        Single Payer and WPA 2.0...NOW!!!

        by Egalitare on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:15:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  show cowardice. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Larin

        some dems stood up and took a beating,
        some dems sat down and didn't join in
        some dems joined the show.

        Courage is a commodity in short supply in Washington.

        George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

        by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:18:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Paul Wellstone was the most courageous (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nathguy, Matt Z

          I recall him saying it would likely cost him the election. He was ahead in the polls, however, when his plane crashed. Now we have Al, instead of Norm, thank God.

          "It's like these guys take pride in being ignorant." Barack Obama August 5, 2008

          by thefretgenie on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:56:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Senator Byrd was the Fighter (0+ / 0-)

            He stood up and said "I feel like one old man is all that stands between
            peace and the rush to war"  coming from a very redneck state,
            that had voted for Bush, it took real courage to risk all that.

            George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

            by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:26:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Funny ... (18+ / 0-)
      How just a few years ago, it was against American values to question American values.

      The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

      by D in Northern Virginia on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:39:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  For the last freakin' time, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlyoshaKaramazov, NCrissieB

      Iraq was not a "preemptive" war, and Bush did not have a "doctrine of preemptive war."  If anything, Bush exhibited a doctrine of "preventive" war by invading Iraq.  But doctrine is too official a term to be used for a war of choice.

      "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

      by SueDe on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:44:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What did he prevent? (5+ / 0-)

        Other than preventing tens of thousands of people on both sides from living to old age?

        "All that serves labor serves the nation. All that harms labor is treason. -Abraham Lincoln

        by happy camper on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:49:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Okay, how 'bout this? (4+ / 0-)

          It wasn't preemptive (there was no threat to preeumpt); it wasn't preventive (although I guess it could be said that it prevented a lot of people from living any longer).  It was a fly-by-the-seat-of-our-pants war of choice, later rationalized by the Bush administration and their talkative minions by the statement, "But, but, but... we were scared after 9/11!"

          "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

          by SueDe on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:55:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Please (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        happy camper, NCrissieB

        Be more clear.  Your comment sounds like an apologist, but your prior comments are anything but.
        Hal C.

        •  how is labeling the doctrine accurately (0+ / 0-)

          apologist? The point of the commenter is that "preemptive" implies an immediacy of threat that was never there nor ever accused. If you make vague threats about "mushroom clouds" some day in the future, that by definition is "preventive".

          I think you should retract your apologist comment.

          the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

          by SeanF on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:53:55 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  C'mon (0+ / 0-)

            The war was neither preemptive nor preventive--not in Iraq nor Afghanistan.  The purpose was to create a New American Century by means of intimidating the world in (mostly) Iraq with what we now know to be genocide, ethnic cleansing and mass murder.

            The US defeats in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon has certainly put the concept of a New American Century in a different light--but carry on with your meaningless quibbling.

            Hal C.

            •  of course...i was talking about how (0+ / 0-)

              they sold it. They didn't sell it as an act of conquest. They sold it as taking out a "rising threat" (as defined very loosely) before it can do anything. And that's what the RNCC dude was renouncing, in case you forgot the point of this story.

              [/meaningless quibble]

              the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

              by SeanF on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 05:33:54 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Oh yeah, I almost forgot that (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nathguy

        "we're fighting them there so we don't have to fight them here"...  that does it.  His ass is covered.


        The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

        by nupstateny on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:02:07 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Tipped for sarcasm ... (0+ / 0-)

        ... though perhaps you needed to make the sarcasm a bit more obvious.

        The Iraq War was neither preemptive nor preventive.  It was imperial conquest, plain and simple.

        That said, the Bush Doctrine as enunciated in his speech at West Point used the term "preemption" - based on a concept developed as part of U.S. Army maneuver warfare operational doctrine - and that's why "preemptive war" stuck.

        •  it was often described (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          NCrissieB

          by the war criminals as "preemptive" because that implies they are doing a counter attack to an assault that is underway but has not yet hit our shores. But just because they called it preemptive doesn't make it so. Using the rationale they did, they clearly meant "preventive" because the only threat they ever mentioned was some day in the future. They never claimed Saddam was about to launch an attack on the U.S. They said he or his terrorist minions may one day. So it really was preventive, at least as argued by the right.

          Now one can say that it was really a war of conquest, which I'd agree with. But that is more speculative and most people went along with it because of the precieved future threat, not cuz they were all hungry for more territory.

          the greatest threat to america is its sense of exceptionalism.

          by SeanF on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:59:51 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  They meant "preemption" differently. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SeanF

            "Preemption," in military parlance, doesn't (quite) mean acting to forestall an imminent threat.  It's a term of art in U.S. Army operational doctrine, and means acting at a time of relative advantage in order to forestall a projected relative disadvantage.  If you have a relative advantage now but project that balance will reverse in the future, the principle of preemption says you should attack while you have the advantage.  (Note: the operational principle assumes you are already at war.)

            The regional advantage we were losing was political rather than military; we'd worn out our welcome with the Saudi government.  Whatever the Saudis' active ties to Al Qaeda, they shared sympathies in terms of U.S. military bases on Saudi soil, and the Saudis had the economic leverage to evict us.  There weren't any other likely willing hosts for large-scale U.S. bases in the region, and without bases our response options against Iraq or Iran were very limited.  So we picked an unwilling host: Iraq.

            But note that Bush shifted preemption from a military to a political context.  Where the operational principle of preemption calls for an attack to forestall a projected military disadvantage during a war, the Bush Doctrine called for starting a war (in this case with Iraq) to forestall a projected political disadvantage (with Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states).

            The talk of WMDs and other imminent threats from Iraq was public relations hype to sell the war to the American people.  We invaded Iraq to preempt our eviction from Saudi Arabia and maintain U.S. military bases in the Persian Gulf region.  That's why I described the war as imperial conquest.

  •  maybe he should consider endorsing democrats (8+ / 0-)

    in races in the house and senate this year.  

    Republicans===the party of the 1% rich people in America. Or in other words..The Party of NO!

    by jalapeno on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:31:41 AM PDT

  •  How long before they denounce him? (6+ / 0-)

    Or will they shove this down the memory hole?

  •  He'll be okay as long as he doesn't criticize (19+ / 0-)

    Limbaugh.

    There are priorities.

    "After two years of episodic fits and starts, I finally got past the first three paragraphs."

    by GussieFN on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:32:26 AM PDT

    •  how could you forget Palin? (0+ / 0-)

      [also]

      Today's dessert special is Plain Baked Alaska

      by shpilk on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:35:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh, Now You Tell Me... (0+ / 0-)
      So. Attacking the wrong people in the wrong country for the wrong reasons is not good?
      BushII had the depth of a fortune cookie. Limbaugh is an audio hatred instigator for the ghosts of Hitler and Sen Joe McCarthy.
      Like to see an R go after St Ronnie once. His 8 year nap of charming harm did a lot of prep for what we got now.
      These front men are finally being exposed as the government finds out in so many ways that it's its own enemy. You can have them all; McCain, Bayh, McConnell, Boehner (now there's a dapper moron,) Bond (retiring? To Devil's Island?,) Buchanan (tell me what to think, Pat. Give me phony histories to warp conscience and excuse misogeny,)
      Swine flu is nothing next to the diseased soul league of selfishness, narcissism, genocide, corruption, sophist dishonesty and the witch hunt undermining goodwilled cooperation among decent, caring humanity.
      Bush was a punk. Reagan was an announcer. Cardboard cutouts. Measure the depth of that empty suited Mitt Romney puppet. Try to get through a paragraph of Sarah Palin. Poster posers of poison.
      The CDC should develop a social psych wing to evaluate the damage these savages cause to the national well being. We're being tricked and ruled by pirate parrots, overfunded to choke us down to chaos. See how they run.

      Lies at the top cause murder and misery at the bottom. Freedom should be a universal birthright. So many lives end like Neda Agha Soltan.

      by renzo capetti on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:41:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The depths of stupidity, ignorance - I don't know (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluedoc, snazzzybird, renzo capetti

    what you want to call it -  leave me at a total loss of words...

    Experience suggests that the Bush doctrine of 'pre-emptive' war is ill-suited to America’s values, traditions and democratic institutions.

    "I still say a church steeple with a lightning rod on top shows a lack of confidence."

    by logsol on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:33:17 AM PDT

  •  When will the freepers start calling for his head? (4+ / 0-)
    Right about... now.

    Pragmatic progressivism is the future.

    by Pragmaticus on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:33:34 AM PDT

  •  It's easy to be honest when you're the FORMER (6+ / 0-)

    republican whatever...it's while they hold the job that they need to be honest with Americans, for a change.

    It's often said that life is strange. But compared to what? --Steve Forbert

    by darthstar on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:34:01 AM PDT

  •  Begging to differ. (27+ / 0-)

    Republicans lost their majorities and the WH because of a bunch of failures, best summed up in the response to the flooding of New Orleans.

    It was that week that Americans took a hard look at the "government is the problem" meme and said, "Well, yeah, the way these guys do it."

    Songs up at da web site! Also. . . It's Kostown, Jake. . .

    by Crashing Vor on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:34:09 AM PDT

  •  This is great and all ... (4+ / 0-)

    For a regional Republican to somewhat admit the error of the ways, but won't this net nothing more than a stern rebuke from Kommissar Limbaugh?

    The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

    by D in Northern Virginia on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:34:36 AM PDT

    •  well maybe (0+ / 0-)

      it's the start towards a process of adjustment.

      they say in psychiatry the first step is to admit you have a problem?

      The GOP under Bush, viciously punished everyone who said there
      was a problem with going to Iraq.  Shinseki, Lindsay, dozens of
      flag officers,  and, hundreds of people in the bureaucracy and party.

      Well, now, they are starting to say that there are problems and this
      is one of the problems.

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:05:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Iraq was a colossal mistake. (13+ / 0-)

    But the Bush administration's response to Hurricane Katrina is what caused the collapse of the GOP.  Iraq was a colossal mistake that was happening halfway around the world, and one where news access could be screened at least somewhat.  The abject failure after Hurricane Katrina couldn't be denied, covered up, or explained away as "the media don't report on our successes."  It was an in-your-face failure of the GOP's less government mantra, with a side of cronyism and a double helping of racism for dessert.  Far more than Iraq, Hurricane Katrina killed the GOP by proving their incompetence and disinterest in the fate of ordinary Americans.

    •  Iraq, Katrina, and the economic meltdown (7+ / 0-)

      were all symptomatic of various Republican values.

      At least Cole fessed up to one of them.

      The most violent element in society is ignorance.

      by Mr MadAsHell on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:49:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, the failure of Reaganomics and (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Crashing Vor, Matt Z, NCrissieB

      deregulation is part of this story, too.

      Katrina was symptom of a broken government, brought on by chronic underfunding as well as arrogance and gross incompetence. The chronic underfunding is what Grover Norquist wanted, to drown government in a bathtub. NOLA became that bathtub.

      The underfunding combined with the massive incompetence of 'Brownie doing a heckuva a job' and Rumsfeld refusing to allow US military assets to assist in the aid efforts, Katrina became a perfect storm of death.

      Today's dessert special is Plain Baked Alaska

      by shpilk on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:33:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nathguy, Matt Z

        But unlike Iraq or the economic collapse, you didn't need any special expertise to understand the failure after Katrina.  We'd all seen the government respond to natural disasters, time and time again.  A lot of us had first-hand experience, either having lived in stricken areas or having volunteered to help after disasters elsewhere.  We might not understand all of the logistical and administrative details, but we had an intuitive sense of how the process should work ... and what we were seeing bore no resemblance to what we (very reasonably!) expected from government.

        We have to take an expert's word for this being a monumental screwup and, moreover, no expert could convince us it wasn't.  We knew it from direct observation and remembered experience.

        That was the reason Katrina clobbered the GOP so badly.  There was no way to spin it, cover it up, or change the subject ... and those trying to do so might as well have worn sandwich boards with "Liar" printed on them in sludge and blood.  They couldn't "make their own reality" anymore.

        •  small scale to regional disaster (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Matt Z, NCrissieB

          people expect the government to handle crises.

          if your cat is in  a tree, you want the fire department to come.

          If your house is on fire, you want the fire department to put it out.

          If you are having a heart attack you want the EMS to come, give you a
          jolt and transport you.

          If you are having your house robbed, you want the police to come.

          if there is a civil disturbance you want the SWAT to show up.

          if there is a riot you expect the national guard to show up.

          if there is a earthquake, you want the guard, the police, fire, EMS,
          to set up aid stations, prevent looting, help the red cross set up feeding
          stations,

          if there is a hurricane, you want all that in spades.

          for Bush to sit back and party, for Rumsfeld to refuse federal troops,
          for Rove to blame the state and local people, were outrageous.

          For the whackos at AEI and Cato to expect that this would be
          handled by the market and insurance was cruel, heartless and
          destructive to the GOP.

          George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

          by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 01:12:48 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Don't forget the Schiavo fiasco (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      NCrissieB

      We (i.e. liberals) always knew how whacked the right wing bible thumpers were, but middle America didn't until the whole Terry Schiavo fiasco played out. When everybody saw what idiots these guys were due to that, well that really started the rock rolling down the hill.

      The chronology of the GOP's undoing goes like this: Schiavo, failed Social Security reform attempt and then Katrina. Iraq was playing in the background while all those things were happening and served to solidify opinions.

      I think opinions hardened about Iraq when Katrina happened, because it was like everyone saw how inept BushCo was here at home and was like - these guys (and BushCo in particular) can't do anything right. Then it was like how can we have 3,000 dead soldiers for something that had nothing to do with payback for 911.

      I remember being on a trip with mixed company (some Dems / some Reps) during the time the Schiavo thing was happening, and to a person everybody was like WTF are the Republicans doing? It was the start of the downfall.

  •  Grabbing for the nearest life raft!!! nt (0+ / 0-)

    "As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever." -- Clarence Darrow

    by Bluedoc on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:35:48 AM PDT

  •  Post emptive BS n/t (4+ / 0-)

    That's Comrade socialist fuckstick.

    by odhumanity on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:35:50 AM PDT

  •  Too late for the Senate Judiciary Cmte. (4+ / 0-)

    They could have used that advice last week.

    "It's a gay witches for abortion party Flanders, you wouldn't be interested." - Homer Simpson

    by angry liberaltarian on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:35:53 AM PDT

  •  "History will vindicate me!" --- Bush (8+ / 0-)

    "I have a lot of growing up to do. I realized that the other day in my fort." --- Zach Galifianakis

    by droogie6655321 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:36:12 AM PDT

  •  Back when I was a GOPer (but deep into my.. (8+ / 0-)

    ...disillusionment by then), one of Cole's minions called me to invite me to some gala fundraiser in 2006.  I laughed, and invoked Katrina response, Terry Schiavo and Iraq as the reasons I wouldn't be attending or sending money.  The caller seemed to have gotten many similar responses, judging by her reaction.

    The "choice" offered by capital is illusory. If you cannot afford the choice, you don't have the freedom to choose.

    by high bitrate on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:36:23 AM PDT

  •  It's a whole helluva lot more than just (6+ / 0-)

    the "pre-emptive war" thing, Tom - war crimes, lying to Congress and the American people, tax cuts that benefit no one but the wealthiest 2% of Americans, war on the environment, denial of anthropomorphic climate change (and many other scientific findings that went against the world according to Bush-Cheney), and in general being dickwads of the first order.

    But, it's a start...

    When in doubt, tweak the freeqs.

    by wozzle on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:37:35 AM PDT

  •  I'm Sure the Families of the Brave Americans (8+ / 0-)

    who have made the ultimate sacrifice REALLY appreciate this admission NOW.

    St. Sarah from Wasilla - poster child for Delusions of Adequacy

    by CityLightsLover on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:38:49 AM PDT

  •  What Cole DIDN't say about the GOP (8+ / 0-)

    Conspicuously absent from former Rep. Cole's comments was a criticism of the type of conservatism that has dominated the Republican Party since Reagan. In essence, Cole boiled down the party's myriad problems into one word:Iraq. He conveniently left out any criticism over the wreckage of the economy caused by massive deregulation and how out of step the GOP is on health care, credit card companies, foreclosure assistance, and other pocketbook issues that effect ordinary Americans.

    •  What about the persistent racism? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snazzzybird, Matt Z

      You can not have an all-white, all the time party and expect to understand America.  They just understand their portion of wealthy, white, segregated America.  

    •  He also left out the response to (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Matt Z

      Katrina.  I think that was the icing on the cake.


      The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

      by nupstateny on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:04:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  We complain about GW Bush and the real (0+ / 0-)

      problems were from Reagan and GHWB. They are the ones who sent us down the down to hell.

      You are correct, this mea culpa by Cole is a diversionary tactic: when Republican leaders refute Stockman's VooDoo Economics and the race and class warfare of Atwater [like GHWB did during the campaign in 1979-1980], then the circle will complete.

      Then the Republican Party might be able to restore itself some sense of dignity and be an honest broker for the American people.

      Chances of that happening?

      ZERO.

      Today's dessert special is Plain Baked Alaska

      by shpilk on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:24:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  This is great news for the Palin campaign (7+ / 0-)

    since she never really got what it was in the first place.

    "I'm just sayin... don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

    by tc59 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:40:29 AM PDT

  •  As I watch the GOPers self-destruct I have to (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird, NCrissieB

    laugh.  Since President Obama isn't jumping on the gun to go after specific transgressors they remind me of a bunch of rats scurrying from a sinking ship.  Rather than batten down the hatches and try to protect themselves they are all getting nervous and trying to distance themselves from the misdeeds of the past 8 years.

    I admire the President's strategy.  The GOPers fear it because they sense the calm before the storm!!!

    "As long as the world shall last there will be wrongs, and if no man objected and no man rebelled, those wrongs would last forever." -- Clarence Darrow

    by Bluedoc on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:41:34 AM PDT

  •  Amazing to hear this coming from Cole.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bluedoc

    He's about as out there as they come.

    "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" I'm a Ralph Yarborough Democrat -8.25, -7.54

    by dem4evr on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:42:37 AM PDT

    •  he is a party operator. (0+ / 0-)

      Former RNC Executive Director.

      Former NRCC Chair.

      Campaign Consultant.

      He's wheeling for power in the party now, trust me.

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:06:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "In what respect Charlie?" (6+ / 0-)

    The Bush Doctrine gave us one of Palin's greatest hits.

    •  Hard-nosed, hard-bitten ... (0+ / 0-)

      Hardscrabble reporter Charlie Gibson, asking all of those gotcha questions.

      The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

      by D in Northern Virginia on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:45:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Drat! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snazzzybird

      You beat me to it!
      Of course, if I recall correctly, the Palin supporters all quickly denounced the question itself (I want to say I recall Kristol in particular), saying that there was really no such thing as the Bush doctrine, or that if there was it wasn't ever specifically articulated, so it was a "gotcha" question, and shame, shame Charlie Gibson. Apparently Cole lost that memo.

      "You know, the only trouble with capitalism is capitalists; they're too damn greedy." - Herbert Hoover (Republican)

      by abdguyBOS on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:00:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  GOP peace wing (3+ / 0-)

    Most sensible statement from a GOPer in a long time. Could there be a Peace wing in the party of War? Probably not, but I hope so.

    Cities are good for the environment

    by citydem on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:44:45 AM PDT

    •  Yes, there is a GOP (0+ / 0-)

      wing .. but it's piece, not peace.

      Like I posted above, the Bush Doctrine has simply been shown to be not profitable enough for the already filthy rich.

      Today's dessert special is Plain Baked Alaska

      by shpilk on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:19:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  From the Rep Tom Cole website: (4+ / 0-)

    Whatever he's saying now about Bush, this guy is one of the worst types of liars.  This fucktard's from Oklahoma the most conservative state in America.  There are so many lies in his healthcare position I don't even know where to begin.  I guess if you're "inbetween" jobs, you don't need health insurance.

    Government-Run Health Care? Get a Second Opinion.
    Jul 15, 2009

    Last week President Obama and his liberal Democratic allies in Congress announced plans for a government takeover of America's health care industry.  This plan will cost more than a trillion dollars and will be paid for by tax increases and costly mandates on small business owners and by cuts to Medicare.  And if you are among the over 250 million Americans who currently have health insurance, get ready for big changes.

    For years the left has grossly overstated the true number of Americans who are genuinely and chronically uninsured.  Among the alleged 47 million people without insurance are millions who could afford insurance, but simply choose not to buy it.  Many of these people are young and healthy and they don't think anything will ever happen to cause them to need insurance.  Millions more are people in-between jobs.  They may be uninsured at the particular time that the snapshot is taken, but they have been insured in the recent past and they will be insured in the near future.

    The plan announced by the Democrats in Congress, and endorsed by President Obama, is not about providing health care for everyone.  In fact, their plan will still leave approximately 17 million Americans without insurance.  This plan is about taking control of yet another American industry.  It is about controlling people and limiting their choices.  And it is just the latest step in their frightening march of America towards a European-style socialism.

    According to a 2009 study by the non-partisan Lewin Group, the Democrats' health care bill will force 114 million Americans out of their current private health coverage.  This includes approximately 106 million individuals who are covered under an existing employer-provided plan.  Because the centerpiece of their plan is a government run program based on Medicare, which reimburses doctors for less than the cost of the service delivered, doctors and hospitals have to charge private insurance companies and their customers more in order to make up the difference.  As a result, the cost of private health coverage is expected to increase by an estimated $460 per person, or $1,788 for a family of four. This proposal also robs many of America's seniors of health care coverage that they are currently receiving.  Those who have signed up for Medicare Advantage, a popular prescription drug plan chosen by many of our country's senior citizens, will see sharp cuts to their program funding.

    There's more, but you get the drift.  What a POS this guy is.

    It's time for a Progressive Party.

    by mdgarcia on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:45:24 AM PDT

  •  Try discarding the racism (7+ / 0-)

    I live and work in the Deep South.  Just mention President Obama, and it generally takes about 30 seconds up to 2 minutes max, before white male conservatives will throw out discriminatory statements and mention of "watermelons" or worse.  
    The racists have a home and a party: it is the GOP.
    They aren't going to overcome this shortcoming any time soon. There is no modern day William F. Buckley to throw out the "kooks and loons." from the conservative movement.  Instead, they have Rush, Gingrich, and Coulter.  Good luck with that!  

  •  "Sorry about the 4,300 dead soldiers. My bad." (9+ / 0-)

    You have exactly 10 seconds to change that look of disgusting pity into one of enormous respect!

    by Cartoon Peril on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:48:09 AM PDT

  •  Cole schedules apology to Limbaugh for 11am. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy

    He'll apologize to Hannity and O'Reilly later in the afternoon. After all, these "pundits" are hugely invested in backing the Bush Doctrine. Cole had better get to groveling, toot sweet.

    On the subject of unprovoked aggression, has anyone heard how the wingnuts' civil war plans are coming along?

  •  DEMs healthcare plan costs a WOPPING $1 trillion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Leftcenterlibertarian

    Coincidentally, the Iraq NATIONBUILDING has cost us about $1 trillion in just 6 year.  Which will produce more benefits for more Americans?  I'll let you decide.

  •  How about cause it's a fucking war crime? (5+ / 0-)

    War of Aggression is a WAR CRIME. Maybe that is why we shouldn't do it, and not because it was bad for the GOP.

    The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now do you begin to understand me?' - 1984

    by MinistryOfTruth on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:53:00 AM PDT

  •  The GOP winning elections (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, jds1978

    is the only value Tom Cole really cares about. Otherwise he'd have resigned in utter disgust in 2001.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference.

    by blue aardvark on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:54:27 AM PDT

  •  Or: Boo-hoo, elections have consequences (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    snazzzybird, nathguy

    Damn straight!

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:55:45 AM PDT

  •  Nah, nah, nah! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    drumwolf, nathguy

    That isn't it at all. The true problem is that the GOP wasn't conservative enough.  At least, thats what the wingnutters are claiming. bush, after all, was a RINO, and, in fact, was a George Soros/Acorn undercover agent intended to queer the GOP brand.

    The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not "Eureka!" but "That's funny..."

    by sizzzzlerz on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 07:57:37 AM PDT

  •  That self-evaluation is starting to pay off.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, Clarknt67

    ...Please....continue....

  •  What do you suppose the topic (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, jds1978

    of the day for Rush will be?  Cole will be apologizing before Wednesday.


    The religious fanatics didn't buy the republican party because it was virtuous, they bought it because it was for sale

    by nupstateny on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:00:25 AM PDT

  •  American values? (0+ / 0-)

    Like empathy? Nah, that's crazy talk.

  •  The Gop lost their majority (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, jds1978
    and soldiers and civilians lost their life.  

    Work is the curse of the drinking classes." Oscar Wilde

    by ccmask on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:04:54 AM PDT

    •  and we lost a trillion. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ccmask

      A trillion dollars wasted and a decade of failed policy.

      The money we can make up, but the time? How do you ever make that up?

      Imagine if a talented Republican president had said

      "My fellow Citizens, we find ourselves with a nation under attack,
      from an obscure and bizarre group of international criminals funded
      by petro-dollars from the middle east.  As long as this nation continues
      it's oil obsession, we will continue to fund the criminals who killed so
      many people today.  I am launching a Manhattan project to place the
      US on an energy nuetral budget by the end of the decade.  If our grandparents
      could build the atomic bomb and win the war, if our parents could
      put a man on the moon, we will rebuild this country to a clean, green,
      energy future.  That will not be an easy fix, but, it will require work, sacrifice and common cause with us all.  We must build nuclear power plants, design 50 and 100 MPG cars, we must drill for oil and gas and expand pipelines and install highly efficient lighting and superinsulate our homes. we must learn to do more with less and to avoid waste at all stages.  This will not be easy, but, it must be done.  I look forward to in 2009, being on the cusp of an america prepared to power it's way through the 21st century".

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:15:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Pre-emptive War (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, Calamity Jean

    Is the ideology my grand-father died fighting against in Europe in WWII.

    "Be yourself; everyone else is already taken." - Oscar Wilde

    by greendem on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:04:55 AM PDT

  •  It's proven to be a danger to profitability. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy

    That's the only reason they'd be backing away from it. Apparently this policy just doesn't make enough money fact enough for the rich.

    Today's dessert special is Plain Baked Alaska

    by shpilk on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:14:39 AM PDT

  •  Your'e a day late and a dollar short, Gopasaur nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    shpilk

    And the people bowed and prayed, to the Neon God they made..

    by Anthony Page aka SecondComing on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:16:57 AM PDT

  •  If by "ill-suited," (0+ / 0-)

    this idiot means "anathema," then, yeah.

    Cheney-bu$h tortured people
    To get false confessions
    To fraudulently justify
    Invasion of Iraq!

    by OleHippieChick on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:20:45 AM PDT

    •  it wasn't anathema immediately, (0+ / 0-)

      it was ill-suited to a long war.

      Frankly the American people are an aggressive and warlike people.

      Peace is not close to our national values, the country was founded in
      the revolutionary war, the indian wars expanded the nation,
      and the Civil war was the basis by which the biggest policy issue
      of the century was settled.

      The American people supported our military operations in the Dominican
      Republic, Lebanon, Haiti, Grenada, Panama, and a half a dozen others
      in the 20th century.

      Where we get turned off is when they drag out.  Korea.  Once the chinese
      were in and it became a stalemate it annoyed the American People.
      Vietnam was very popular until 68, when Tet made it clear that the
      war was going to drag on.  Iraq was very popular, until the third year.

      Americans don't like wars that run more then 3 years, that's pretty standard.

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:40:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Terrorist! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978

    Filthy, Commie, Pinko, Anti-American, Scum.

    That's what the Mouth Breathing GOP thinks of him now.

    I wonder if Michelle Bachman will call for him to be investigated
    for anti-american values.

    Perhaps she can convene the House Un-American Activities Committee.

    George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

    by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:24:22 AM PDT

  •  let's keep in mind, though . . . (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Matt Z, Steven Anderson
     . . . that it wasn't just the Repugs who cheered the Iraq War.  The Dems were happily behind it too, just as they were also solidly behind the neocon "New American Century" agenda, enthusiastically, right from the start.  Indeed, the Dems didn't initially criticize Bush for STARTING the war -- they criticized him for not WINNING it, and offered plans of their own to "get the job done".  It wasn't until the insurgent primary campaign of Ned Lamont that the Dems were startled into silence, and began to timidly voice some mild opposition to the entire war. And it wasn't until the results of the 2006 election demonstrated that the war itself was facing popular rejection that the Dems all of a sudden decided that they were against the war after all.

    Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

    by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:25:19 AM PDT

      •  More like most. (0+ / 0-)

        Most Democrats backed the Republicans. There were very few who stood by their anti-war views.

      •  the ones who COUNTED, backed the war (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        Here's a reminder:

        Washington Post Aug 22, 2005:

        Senate Democrats, according to aides, convened a private meeting in late June to develop a cohesive stance on the war and debated every option -- only to break up with no consensus.

        Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) broke with his party leadership last week to become the first senator to call for all troops to be withdrawn from Iraq by a specific deadline. Feingold proposed Dec. 31, 2006

        In delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address yesterday, former senator Max Cleland (Ga.), a war hero who lost three limbs in Vietnam, declared that "it's time for a strategy to win in Iraq or a strategy to get out."

        Although critical of Bush, the party's establishment figures -- including Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (Nev.), Sen. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (Del.) and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) -- all reject the Feingold approach, reasoning that success in Iraq at this point is too important for the country.

        Feingold said, "We have to go on the offensive to show the American people that we're not afraid to disagree." He said that he believes an immediate withdrawal does not make military sense but that the public needs reassurance that the Iraq operation is moving purposefully toward completion.

        When the Senate Foreign Relations Committee conducted a confirmation hearing for Bush confidante Karen Hughes, tapped as the next undersecretary of state for public diplomacy, not a single Democrat showed up to grill her on administration policy

        "Credit the Democrats for not trying to pour more gasoline on the fire, even if they're not particularly unified in their message," said Michael McCurry, a former Clinton White House press secretary. "Democrats could jump all over them and try to pin Bush down on it, but I'm not sure it would do anything but make things worse. The smartest thing for Democrats to do is be supportive."

        CNN, April 21, 2004:

        Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she is not sorry she voted for a resolution authorizing President Bush to take military action in Iraq despite the recent problems there but she does regret "the way the president used the authority."

        "How could they have been so poorly prepared for the aftermath of the toppling of Saddam Hussein?" the New York Democrat asked Tuesday night on CNN's "Larry King Live."

        "I don't understand how they had such an unrealistic view of what was going to happen."

        "Obviously, I've thought about that a lot in the months since," she said. "No, I don't regret giving the president authority because at the time it was in the context of weapons of mass destruction, grave threats to the United States, and clearly, Saddam Hussein had been a real problem for the international community for more than a decade."

        "*The consensus was the same, from the Clinton administration to the Bush administration*," she said. "It was the same intelligence belief that our allies and friends around the world shared.

        MSNBC, June 13, 2005

        At a meeting of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, party activists were hoping to hear one of their leaders denounce President Bush’s Iraq policy.

        One rose to the occasion, electrifying the crowd by asking: "What I want to know is why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is supporting the president's unilateral attack on Iraq?"

        "I think Democrats have largely been backed into a corner on Iraq," said Judith Hope, a DNC executive committee member from New York. "While most of us believe we should never have gone in there in the first place, many of us believe that now that we’re there, we have no choice but to finish the job. It would be both immoral and dangerous to bail out of that part of the world, given what we know today."

        She added that the day may come when "the political leadership of this country has to say, ‘Not only was it a mistake to go in there, it’s a failure, and we’ve got to get out,’ but I don’t think we’re there yet."

        Another DNC member, Karen Marchioro, the former co-chair of Dean’s campaign in Washington state, said, "Once we’ve gotten ourselves into a mess like this, I’m not sure what I think we should do — and I was opposed to this thing from the get-go. I don’t think it’s a fair question to ask of people who opposed this war to figure out how to get out of it."

        USA Today, July 5, 2004

        The Democratic Party pledges an unrelenting struggle against terrorism and a commitment to seeing Iraq succeed, according to a statement of election principles shaped heavily by national security crises.

        The working draft of the Democratic Party platform rebukes President Bush's leadership on foreign policy and talks tough on terrorism. But it doesn't take a position on a central issue: whether the war in Iraq was justified.

        "People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq," according to the draft, written in coordination with the Kerry campaign. Some anti-war Democrats say they will try to revise and harden the platform's stance toward the war.

        The 16,000-word document is shorter and more thematic than the 2000 platform. A copy was made available to USA TODAY and other news organizations.

        It says Democrats will:

        • Finish the job in Iraq. "We cannot allow a failed state in Iraq that inevitably would become a haven for terrorists and a destabilizing force in the Middle East," it says. It calls for persuading NATO to contribute additional military forces, a step NATO has declined to take.

        • Fund 40,000 more troops for the U.S. military. It doesn't say additional troops should be deployed to Iraq, however.

        Salon.Com, Dec 2, 2005

        Sen. Joseph Biden Jr. of Delaware, December 2005
        (In a statement to Salon)

        Norm Kurz, the senator's communication director, said that despite some calls for an immediate pullout from Iraq, Sen. Biden has "never believed in a specific timeline" for a troop drawdown. *"Pulling out precipitously is a problem," Kurz says, relaying Biden's view, "if what we leave behind is a haven for terrorists."*

        Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, December 2005
        (In a statement to Salon)

        Sen. Bayh's communication director, Dan Pfeiffer, said that while the senator believes a strategy to bring home the troops needs to be implemented, any plan must be "driven by events on the ground." Bayh, Pfeiffer said, rejects the mandatory withdrawal from Iraq by "any specific date."

        Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, Nov. 29, 2005

        "I do not believe that we should allow this to be an open-ended committment without limits or end. Nor do I believe that we can or should pull out of Iraq immediately. I believe we are at a critical point with the December 15th elections that should, if successful, allow us to start bringing home our troops in the coming year, while leaving behind a smaller contingent in safer areas with greater intelligence and quick strike capabilities. This will advance our interests, help fight terrorism and protect the interests of the Iraqi people."

        Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, Nov. 30, 2005

        "This debate is not about an artificial date for withdrawal ... No one is talking about running in the face of a challenge. We're talking about how to win, how to succeed, how do you best achieve our goals? That's the choice here...

        "So what the president did not acknowledge today at all is that the presence of our troops itself is a part of the current reality on the ground that presents food for the insurgency. And you need to reduce that presence over a period of time in order to be able to succeed, not fail."

        Former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, Nov. 11, 2005

        "We've reached the point where the large number of our troops in Iraq hurts, not helps, our goals. Therefore, early next year, after the Iraqi elections, when a new government has been created, we should begin redeployment of a significant number of troops out of Iraq. This should be the beginning of a gradual process to reduce our presence and change the shape of our military's deployment in Iraq."

        Foreign Policy in Focus, July 6, 2006

        The Democratic leadership of both the House and Senate supports continued funding of the Iraq war and has been reluctant to force the Bush administration to set even a tentative deadline for the withdrawal of American troops. Indeed, the Democrats—who controlled the Senate in 2002—share responsibility with the Republicans for creating the tragic conflict in Iraq by voting to authorize the invasion in the first place.

        On June 15, the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly defeated a resolution calling for the withdrawal of American combat forces from Iraq by the end of this year. Only six of the 100 senators voted in favor of the resolution

        During the same week, the House of Representatives, by a 256-153 vote, claimed that the ongoing war in Iraq was part of the "war on terror" and explicitly declared that "it is not in the national security interest of the United States to set an arbitrary date for the withdrawal or redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq." Forty-two Democrats joined all but three Republicans in supporting the resolution.

        Faced with a lack of support in the Senate for a withdrawal of American forces by the end of the year, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts put forward a resolution the following week calling for a withdrawal by July 1, 2007. The Democratic leadership reportedly put enormous pressure on Kerry to withdraw even this tepid resolution from consideration, but the bill went to the floor anyway. Kerry's bill was also soundly defeated, with no Republican senators and only 13 of the 44 Democratic senators voting in favor.

        Any of those names sound . . .  familiar . . . . ?

        Editor, Red and Black Publishers http://www.RedandBlackPublishers.com

        by Lenny Flank on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 02:45:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  No shit, Sherlock. n/t (0+ / 0-)

    "there's time for naught but bold resolves." John Barth

    by lovespaper on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:29:08 AM PDT

  •  Mission Accomplished (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy
    He may have come to that conclusion due to electoral ass-whooping not via common sense and decency...

    But at least he came to that conclusion.

    Defend Maine's Marriage Equality. Donate.

    by Scott Wooledge on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 08:44:21 AM PDT

  •  A Mr. Limbaugh On th Line, Wants Some Splainin nt (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NorthlandLiberal

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:06:52 AM PDT

  •  So, if it was popular and/or had (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy

    worked, then would Mr. Cole have realized that it was wrong?

    I am sick and tired of being told what percentage of the American public approve or do not approve of torture and arguments about whether it works.  It is just wrong, even if people approve of it and it works.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:31:11 AM PDT

  •  Did he include an apology to all of us (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, jds1978, Matt Z

    who were saying this seven years ago, and six years ago, and five years ago... while people like him were calling us unpatriotic.  Surprise - we were the ones trying to defend America's values.

    So I see only tatters of clearness through a pervading obscurity - Annie Dillard -6.88, -5.33

    by illinifan17 on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:33:57 AM PDT

  •  This just in .... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy, Matt Z

    WASHINGTON — Former Pres. Herbert Hoover (dec.), in a candid new assessment of the state of the Republican Party, says the GOP lost its majorities in the House and Senate because of the 'Depression' and calls for the party to abandon former President Calvin Coolidge’s doctrine of do-nothing economics....

    "Experience suggests that the Coolidge doctrine of 're-tarded' economics is ill-suited to America’s values, traditions and democratic institutions.

    It ought to be discarded."

    Slap it. Shoot it. Kaboot it.

    by adios on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 09:43:04 AM PDT

  •  It's safe for Republicans to shove the blame (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nathguy

    onto a past choice (the iraq war) and to keep it away from their core ideals (racism and maintaining the status quo with regards to wealth distribution).

    Let's be honest, the Iraq war was a terrible thing - but "preemptive strike" wasn't the cause of the Iraq war... the war was caused by a desire to put government funding into private corporation's hands and to get a grip on Iraqi oil contracts.  The war was about presenting an opportunity for those in the right place to make a killing, and at the same time bolster up the US economy which was hit by the bursting of .COM stocks and then the 911 attacks.

    By blaming "preemptive strike" it's the same as not blaming anything - the exact circumstances of Iraq won't happen again anytime soon... so they never have to actually change anything, but at the same time can try to pretend to feel remorse over the action.

    Flowers Bloom for my Ex - though Honeybees are pretty cool too.

    by Yoshi En Son on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 10:06:13 AM PDT

    •  it was typical Bush Laziness and Greed (0+ / 0-)

      rather then doing the heavy  lifting to fix our energy policy
      and let us disengage from these arabs, we found ourselves
      with bush thinkking "Lets invade steal their oil and
      not have to do anything hard".

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 01:06:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm sure Tom's 'ass-whuppin' from Rush will (0+ / 0-)

    be coming very soon.  

    •  Cole is pretty burrowed in in Oklahoma (0+ / 0-)

      he was State party chairman, and a state legislator,
      he doesn't have to worry as much about his flank as
      many of the others who have challenged dogma.

      he may get flayed though, so let's see.

      George Bush is Living proof of the axiom "Never send a boy to do a man's job" E -2.25 S -4.10

      by nathguy on Mon Jul 20, 2009 at 01:07:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I wish (0+ / 0-)

    That the democratic congress would express such sentiments about, particularly, the Afghanistan war which is now Obama's war.

    Nope, I'm not some snarker, just a democrat who believed--unrealistically perhaps--that Obama would show a new direction regarding Afghanistan and Iraq.  So far, I don't see it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site