Democrats Unconvinced On Iraq War (Dems play politics --barf bags ready?)

Washington Post ^ | Wednesday, September 11, 2002 | By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin

[Rudder]

Congressional Democrats said yesterday that classified briefings by President Bush's top advisers have failed to make a compelling case for quick military action against Iraq, and several leaders said Congress should wait until after the November elections before voting to authorize a strike against Saddam Hussein's regime.

"I know of no information that the threat is so imminent from Iraq" that Congress cannot wait until January to vote on a resolution, said Minority Whip Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), the ranking Democrat on the House intelligence committee.

[Feckless]

These douche bags either weren't paying attention or expect a pass on President Bush's assertion "You are either with us or against us".

Right now I'd just as soon kill Marxists as towel heads.

[agrace]

I find it delightful that not a single photo exists of President Bush in the company of that blood-covered monster.

[johnb838]

To Dems hypocrisy is a virtue and the media has doesn't know the definition of the word.

This has all been predicted:

"Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them. The (demonrat) Party intellectual knows in which direction his memories must be altered; he therefore knows that he is playing tricks with reality; but by the exercise of doublethink he also satisfies himself that reality is not violated. The process has to be conscious, or it would not be carried out with sufficient precision, but it also has to be unconscious, or it would bring with it a feeling of falsity and hence of guilt. Doublethink lies at the very heart of Ingsoc, since the essential act of the (demonrat) Party is to use conscious deception while retaining the firmness of purpose that goes with complete honesty. To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies - all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Ultimately, it is by means of doublethink that the (demonrat) Party has been able - and may, for all we know, continue to be able for thousands of years - to arrest the course of history."

Orwell, 1984

I think doublethink has also been described as believing one's own bullcrap.

[TexasCajun]

The whole democratic party are scum!

They stood by their rapist, traitor, perjuring President without one ounce of personal integrity!

Now, they would rather play politics and put you, me, and all Americans at risk because they don't a war during November elections. What low-life M.F.'s!

[backhoe]

Guess they are ignorant of this:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/748248/posts

Daschle & Clinton 1998 vs Daschle & Clinton 2002 (Amazing Audio Of Total Hypocrisy---MUST LISTEN!!!)
RushLimbaugh.Com ^ | September 10, 2002
". This is blowing up in their faces. The old rules of politics don't apply any more. "

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/748159/posts

Live on C-Span - House Armed Services Committee hears from former UN Weapons Inspectors

"The Dems do seem quite subdued, perhaps they are finally getting it - this isn't politics - it's American lives that depend on their decisions..."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/747945/posts

Democrats Reverse 1998 Stance on Iraq - Politics over Nation
Fox News ^ | Tuesday, September 10, 2002 | By Carl Cameron

[Timm]

This is a problem. If the Democrats are determined not to vote before the elections they can avoid doing so in the Senate, at least.

The Republicans should go on the offensive-- particularly in the midterm campaigns-- if they want to get a vote now.

Republicans should also force a debate and vote in the House too, to raise the profile of Democrat intransigence.

Other than that, we'll have to hope that public outcry has an effect. I don't know how widely the Democrat hawkishness in '98 is known. If it gets broadcast far and wide Daschle may come around.

If there is no vote before the elction, Bush will just have to continue to build forces before a vote is taken.

Ugh.

[T. Jefferson]

When Dems asked for Iraq facts, we should have told them "use all of the same facts you used in 98 to vote yes for war and add 4 more years of arms buildup."

If they refuse to vote, I bet Bush starts bombing.

[iceskater]

Excellent letter to LIEberman. Let us know if he responds!

[Constitutional Patriot]

“Bush desperately needs to engineer a Republican victory” in the Nov. 5 congressional elections. A war on Iraq would be “Bush’s ‘October Surprise,’” the group says. "

What these dolts fail to realize is that leaders like George W. Bush and Bill Clinton do not use the same playbook. The security of the American people is a priority to Bush. To Clinton and those of his party, American security is an election issue to be expolited.

[Constitutional Patriot]

Sorry, I didn't mean to call Clinton a leader. He is not a leader, but rather a follower of "focus group" opinions. He is a traitor to the American people. He is a traitor to the Constitution of the United States of America. He is an adulterous liar. He is a drug using coward. He is not a leader.

[Mike Darancette]

It's going to be interesting to see who wakes up first, the democrats or the UN?

Bush's U.N. Speech will be interesting and I hope quite evidentiary. If he can sway any of those folks (the ones that count) the Dems will have to make a rapid about face.

If Bush can get UN approval (even with a veto by China) the Dems risk the possibility of being seen as followers rather than leaders. If the Dems attempt to talk down Bush prior to a UN Vote they could be seen as traitors.

Schroder of Germany failed to even get France to back his play of no aid to America on Iraq. If the US goes our way Schroeder could have a rough time in the upcoming German election.

[mwl1]

Yes to your entire post, but remember Bush can schedule a joint session of Congress w/ televised address... the Speaker of the House "owns" the House chamber, where joint sessions are held.

The RATS are holding a losing hand on this, don't know why they are insisting on political suicide.

If they obstruct acting on a congressional resolution for war against Iraq, it exposes their greatest weakness: obstruction of the president's agenda.

[johnb838]

Bush vowed to get congressional approval. He had strong cards to play withOUT getting a fresh fiat. Like an attorney, in a situation like this you don't ask a question unless you know what the answer is going to be in advance. Therefore, he must know he holds a winning hand.

I've said it here before, the man is a helluva poker player and while it's frustrating sitting back and watching the hands play out it's also awe inspiring at times.

[mwl1]

He has not committed to getting congressional approval before the mid-terms, although Cheney indicated that congressional action before they adjourn was the administration's "preference." If I am behind the curve on the administration's position, please advise.

[DJtex]

the man [Bush] is a helluva poker player...

And Bush has Karl Rove and Dick Chaney as his brain trust plotting strategy. It's like the old joke of Bush wanting to have a battle of wits with the Dashole, but he hates to fight an unarmed man.

Like the minor flurry about Bush saying "crawfish" last week. Bush looks so simple and transparent, but he's shrewd, very shrewd--and his team is totally loyal to him. Remember how everyone marvelled at how well Clinton did in managing the news even though his White House was so disorganized. Bush came in and quickly controlled all leaks--except the leaks that push Bush's message.

Now the Democrats have been sucked showing "skepticism" about attacking Iraq--since Europe is against it. But George W. is going to WOW them in the UN in a few days. He's going to "compromise" by allowing the UN to demand unfettered inspections. At that point, the US will retake it's "only superpower" status and every free government (even France) will fall in line.

Then it's the Democrats that will look like the traitors that they are. It's all going to come down in the next six weeks. Without firing a shot in anger, Bush will earn a landslide for the Republicans in November.

[BulletBrasDotNet]

"On Oct. 9..."

Care to tell us what year?

[BulletBrasDotNet]

Pelosi eyebrows are enough to make you puke.

[Steve0113]

Probably 1998.

[Rudder]

Republicans should also force a debate and vote in the House...

Tom DeLay can do this.

Good idea.

[Rudder]

we are honoring our dead today and these losers are playing games with peoples safety...

Dems have no honor and, hence, no shame.