What If....

Can you imagine the hoots and howls of derision if President Bush had said this???

On the eve of the Mexican holiday, Obama on Monday had an event in the East Room of the White House with Mexico's Ambassador Arturo Sarukhan (sahr-oo-KHAN').

Obama joked that it was "Cinco de Cuatro," botching a play on the Spanish word for "four" when he meant to say "Cuatro de Mayo," or the Fourth of May. He tried again, but he still did not get it right.

I can't wait to hear the excuses from the left. When they come, I hope that they realize what the next comment to come will be...you do know what it is don't you???????

Now And Then

Come with me my friends as we join Mr. Peabody for a ride on the "Way Back Machine". Today's destination, courtesy of many friends including Captain Ed, is 2007 where Sister Toldja has the results from a poll that found....

Do you personally want the Iraq plan President Bush announced last week to succeed?

Overall: 63% Yes 22% No 15% Don’t Know

Democrats: 51% Yes 34% No 15% Don’t Know

She had reported just the week before on a Fox News poll that had similar results.

Fox’s question was revealing: “Regardless of how you voted in the presidential election, would you say you want President Bush to succeed or not?” Democrats said “not,” 51 percent to 40 percent - where the public at large wanted success by almost two to one.

Climbing back into the way back machine again, we go to this 2006 poll that Patterico found. It said.....

I think we all know the answer to that — but here’s some hard proof. Reader jimboster passes along a 2006 poll (.pdf) that proves the point. Check out question 10 — and pay particular attention to how the answers break down by party:

Recall that in August 2006, we were in the thick of a war whose outcome was uncertain. And Democrats didn’t want Bush to succeed.

To be honest and fair....it was not right then and it is not right now. However, you Democrats did, in a small way, bring this upon yourselves. Your vapors now, in light of your actions then ring awfully hollow.

Bush Derangement?????

Those of us on the right often talk about the "Bush Derangement Syndrome" which seems to afflict many on the far left of the politicial spectrum. I have long suspected that the derangement goes deeper than just President Bush and yesterday we got proof of that.

John Edwards and Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized Barack Obama's praise of the Republican Party and Ronald Reagan - an anathema for many Democrats, particularly union members considered crucial to winning Nevada's Democratic caucuses Saturday.

Now if you take a look at what Senator Obama said, it was really thin praise.

Obama told the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board Monday that "Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it," Obama said."I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom," Obama told the newspaper.

Hardly a ringing endorsement of Republican principles eh? However that did not stop Senator's Clinton and Edwards from jumping on the attack.

Two Obama supporters said they received automated phone calls Friday evening in which the senator was described as supporting a Republican agenda.
Gregory Martin, a financial adviser in Reno, said the caller, who had a woman's voice, said she was calling to bring to his attention recent comments Obama had made "in support of the Republican Party and Bush's vision for America." The call also said Obama was in favor of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain and was identified as coming from "friends of Hillary Clinton," Martin said.

Emphasis mine. You saw what he said. Would you call that "supporting a Republican agenda" or supporting anything President Bush has supported? No - all he said is that the Republican Party had ideas!

There you have it my friends. Something to contemplate any time that a politician on the left talks about wanting to compromise with their "friends" on the right in an effort of bipartisanship, don't believe them! It is clear (based on the above comments) that they do not respect the right and their ideas.

Remember this gem from DNC Chairman (and major Friend of Bill) Howard Dean?

I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for . . .

He is not the only one..... Remeber that the next time you are tempted to stay home to teach the squishys "a lesson". At least they don't hate you and everything you stand for like many Democrats do!

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has a screen shot of Hillary Clinton's campaign website that is a must see (before it is taken down). Mrs. Clinton lists Ronald Reagan as one of her "favorite" Presidents! Doncha just love politics!

Ennui

Pity poor Susan...she is sorely disappointed.

A few weeks back I rode my bike to the State Capitol for a peace rally. It had
everything a rally should have -- labor, veterans and Gold Star mothers, respected speakers, a sunny day -- except people.
It was subdued and surreal, like the final scene from "On the Beach," the 1959 movie about nuclear annihilation, in which banners flutter over an outdoor stage and flyers scuttle across the flattened grass and no one is there.

In her typical over-reactionary style, Susan then goes on to talk about the peace rally that flopped and her hyper-imaginative reasons why it flopped.

OK, I exaggerate. Our rally had maybe 300 to 400 people, still pretty much
alive, but it seemed we all had an ashy coat of hopelessness.
In Ken Burns' recent series, "The War," a veteran says the military knew that the longest a person could endure combat before going totally nuts was 240 days. We've been in Iraq roughly 1,650 days now, and though God knows most of us haven't been asked to do much more than sell off our children's future, I think we're all going a little nuts.

I can think of a few folks who think you are already there Susan and this column does little to disuade the impression. Not once does it cross her mind that maybe, just maybe the people of Minnesota don't agree with her or that maybe, just mayber we have more important things to do on a sunny October afternoon.


She then descends into full scale drama queen mode.

We nod out as Hillary's machine rolls on toward the inevitable, fed by media reports of -- the inevitable. And as 2008 approaches, those of the liberal persuasion are filled with a familiar dread.
We agonize as Congress squabbles over who is more unpatriotic for calling which members of the military more unpatriotic -- and our president assures us that the American government does not torture people.
Iraq is a never-ending nightmare, and the Decider's mind seems decided on something catastrophic for Iran. We're drowning in debt.
Our health-care system is great -- for those who can afford it. It's October and
80 degrees outside. Creepy.

It must be horrible in Lenfesteyland. I don't think it is a place I would ever want to visit....so dark...so depressing....so not based in reality.

Then again, maybe I should take heart. Maybe if the ennui overtakes Susan and her ilk, they will stay home next November and then......

Childish adults.

What do you do when you are a bunch of adults intent on protesting the man you hate most in the world and you see a bunch of children who are simply there to sing a song for the man? Why you gather 'round them to yell at them! (HT Captain Ed and Mitch)

For protesters, President George W. Bush's visit Wednesday to Lancaster County
was an occasion to voice their opposition to the war in Iraq, as well as the president's early morning veto of a children's health care bill.

For supporters, it was a chance to catch a glimpse of a beloved world leader.

But for nearly three dozen youngsters from the U-Gro child care center, located just
off the president's motorcade route on Stony Battery Road, it was all about
waving hand-drawn flags, singing songs and holding banners welcoming to
Lancaster one of the most powerful men in the world.

"What an opportunity this is for our children," center director Liz Burkhard said while herding children ages 4 to 6 into a compact, orderly row behind the yellow police tape lining Stony Battery at Church Street.

One group of protesters quickly descended on the happy cluster, however, chanting and singing their own songs to drown out the children's voices.

"Stop brainwashing children to support a president who doesn't deserve our support," one man yelled through a bullhorn. Others told the kids to "educate yourselves" and said "your parents are killing you" by supporting Bush and the war.

Mitch said it best...

Now, let’s reiterate: I’m a greater proponent of free speech than any of my critics. Always.
But this story touches on something in a piece I’m writing for Monday, about the self-centered narcissism that’s behind so many “protesters” - how their ends justify their means, no matter who they crap on in the process.

Narcisissism - noun 1.inordinate fascination with oneself; excessive self-love; vanity. 2. Psychoanalysis. erotic gratification derived from admiration of one's own physical or mental attributes, being a normal condition at the infantile level of personality development. I think the first defination fits perfectly!

These are kids in a DAY CARE CENTER...4 to 6 year olds...which means that they are too young to be in school. This begs the question why the director of the center didn't get the police involved? After all, the police were there lining the route. How hard would it have been to have flagged one of them down long enough to send the protesters packing?

Many people I know say they are stunned to see it go this far. Sadly I am not. I do not underestimate the depths of the hatred that the left has for President Bush. Because they are attacking their mortal "enemy" it's ok, in their minds, to frighten little children.

If it were my kid, I'd be taking names (of the protesters) and suing for mental distress.

We LOVE the troops

So the left claims time after time. Yet they never fail to show their true colors when they think they are among fellow travelers. A KOS Diary, titled "KILLITARY: How America's Armed Forces Create Serial Killers and Mass Murderers" was posted last Thursday. The author, Corey Mitchell, also posted this to his personal blog "In Cold Blood" but he pulled it from BOTH sites after he started taking heat from both the right and the left. Charles Johnson at LGF has the Google cache of both posts, as does the USA Today blog who interviewed Mitchell yesterday. Mitchell, of course, said that the readers "misunderstood" what he said.

"The piece was completely misinterpreted by the readers," he says. "I don't know if that's because I did a bad job writing it? ... My piece was pro-soldier all the way."

Gee - you don't suppose that the title "KILLITARY" in all caps had anything to do with the "misunderstanding" do you Corey?

Not to be outdone, A Whitney Brown discussed his love of the military in a diary dated Monday July 23.

"Hello, I’m A. Whitney Brown, and I support our brave troops overseas. We all do and we all should.... I think they’re a bunch of idiots. I also think they’re morally retarded. Because they sign a contract that says they will kill whoever you tell me to kill. And that is morally retarded. Friends, the most important moral decision a man makes in the course of a day is "Who am I going to kill today?" That’s a decision you should agonize over, dream about, rehearse in your mind for hours, not just leave up to some hare-brained President you didn’t even vote for. A man’s killing list is a very personal matter. It should be between him and those persistent voices in his head. So to sum up, I don’t like our troops, I don’t like what they’re doing, I don’t like their fat, whining families, and yet, I support them. Thank God I live in a free country. Thank You. " (emphasis mine)

With support like that how can we lose! To his credit, it appears that Markos Moulitsas (Kos of the Daily Kos) has had enough!

"There has lately been an alarming rise in diaries and comments that seek to impugn (without evidence) the motives of those they disagree with on various issues.
Yes, there's the impeachment stuff, but this nasty rhetoric is also rampant in the primary war diaries.
This points to a serious breakdown not just on civility, but in the ability of people to properly debate various issues. As such, it presents a serious threat to the integrity of this site."

Of course a lot of this probably has to do with the fact that Markos desperately wants to be "mainstream". JetBlue Airways was supposed to be a sponsor of the Yearly Kos Convention, a convention that I am sure takes a lot of money to run. That sponsorship was pulled last week when people on the center right said "I will never fly on an airline that sponsors this kind of lunacy!" Markos knows that if he is ever going to get the mainstream recognition he craves he is going to have to get the "nut"roots under control FAST. The problem is that there is several years worth of archives for people to go through.

When I started blogging 2 years ago, I too was put off by the incivility in the debate. That factored largely in my pseudonym. Regardless of our differences, I wanted to keep the discussion civil. I knew that maintaining a "ladylike" persona would help me keep my oft volitile temper in check.

It is very easy to demonize the other side when you are dealing with the impersonal internet. However we can and will change the tone of the internet, as long as site owners strive to keep the discussion civil. I wish Markos well in his drive to clean up the atmosphere over at the Daily Kos. I do hope that he means what he says.

Defeatocrats

Well now we know why Senator Reid is in such a hurry to get the surrender vote done and over with. (H/T Gary at LFR)

"CNN's Michael Ware said in a broadcast Jan. 30 that Ramadi is "the true al Qaida national headquarters." If that were true, al Qaida is in bigger trouble in Iraq than most of us realize.
Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt devoted his show last Wednesday to the (overwhelmingly negative) opinions of Iraq war veterans on the demands of Democrats that U.S. troops be pulled out. One call was from "Bruce in Upland," whose son is a soldier currently serving in Iraq.
"I will speak for my son who right now is bored out of his mind in Ramadi, because he hasn't heard a shot fired in combat now in about six or seven weeks," Bruce said."

It seems like word is finally getting out that we ARE winning, the surge IS working and he does not want to wait for General Petraus to appear on the nightly news in two months declaring victory in Iraq. Even the UN Secretary General is on the record saying that the Senator Reid's insistence on immediate withdrawal is a foolish idea.

"(CBS News) NEW YORK United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon is to meet President Bush in Washington Tuesday, a day after publicly weighing in for the first time on the debate raging across the United States about when to pull American troops out of Iraq. Ban warned Monday that an abrupt U.S. troop pullout could deepen the crisis in Iraq, and he urged the United States to keep the Iraqi people in mind when making decisions on the increasingly unpopular war. Ban, who said Iraq would be a major point of discussion at Monday's meeting with Mr. Bush, said both the United States and the international community have a responsibility not to abandon the Iraqi people. "

If it isn't obvious, by now, that the Democratic Party is more concerned about scoring cheap political points - as opposed to working for the good of the country, I don't know what it will take for the American people to get that point. How can they, in good conscience, given the news that is coming out of Iraq and given the warnings of General Petraus (among others) and Sec'y General Moon, continue to push for this "immediate withdrawal"?

Their agenda is showing and it is not pretty.

STOP THE PRESSES!!!!

That paragon of Constitutional Rights abuses, George W. Bush, is at it again. This time he has closed down Fox News.....

"On the TV, stars of RCTV sing their national anthem, and the crowd outside joins in. The men carrying the massive flag are now holding it steady. People grab me and Keith. They tell me in Spanish that they are losing their Democracy and they are worried about their future. One man asserts, "Go tell America and tell Europe what is being done to freedom in Colombia!"
11:58 p.m.: Like clockwork, the channel goes off the air. The music stops; the TV now features a spinning “TVes” logo, which stands for the new socialist, Chavez controlled TV station."

Oh wait....that wasn't President Bush???

This is the thing that bugs me about a lot of folks on the left. They scream bloody murder about supposed violations here in the US and then they align themselves with some of the WORST human rights violaters (Communist Russia, China, Cuba) and then when their guy does what everyone on the right says he is going to do, they turn a blind eye to the abuses.

Hypocrisy - thy name is....

Former Senator Bob Kerrey (D-NE) had a piece in the Wall Street Journal last week that got little attention - and it deserved more than it got.

"Let me restate the case for this Iraq war from the U.S. point of view. The U.S. led an invasion to overthrow Saddam Hussein because Iraq was rightly seen as a threat following Sept. 11, 2001. For two decades we had suffered attacks by radical Islamic groups but were lulled into a false sense of complacency because all previous attacks were "over there." It was our nation and our people who had been identified by Osama bin Laden as the "head of the snake." But suddenly Middle Eastern radicals had demonstrated extraordinary capacity to reach our shores.
As for Saddam, he had refused to comply with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions outlining specific requirements related to disclosure of his weapons programs. He could have complied with the Security Council resolutions with the greatest of ease. He chose not to because he was stealing and extorting billions of dollars from the U.N. Oil for Food program.
No matter how incompetent the Bush administration and no matter how poorly they chose their words to describe themselves and their political opponents, Iraq was a larger national security risk after Sept. 11 than it was before. And no matter how much we might want to turn the clock back and either avoid the invasion itself or the blunders that followed, we cannot. The war to overthrow Saddam Hussein is over. What remains is a war to overthrow the government of Iraq. " (emphasis mine)

Senator Kerrey then goes on to chastise people like Senator Biden who, while condemning US intervention in an Iraqi Civil War, have no problems interjecting the US into other Civil Wars around the world.

"The critics who bother me the most are those who ordinarily would not be on the side of supporting dictatorships, who are arguing today that only military intervention can prevent the genocide of Darfur, or who argued yesterday for military intervention in Bosnia, Somalia and Rwanda to ease the sectarian violence that was tearing those places apart. "

I have long wondered how the left could justify that position. In the spirit of disclosure, I support us being in Iraq AND into the Sudan in order to stop the atrocities in Darfur. Maybe the Democrats in DC need to think about their positions on these issues and answer the question "why are they so out of line?"

Fairness for all

Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently revived discussion of the "Fairness Doctrine". The Fairness Doctrine (for those of you who are too young to remember it) was an FCC rule that dictated if you had 1 hour of programming from one side of the politicial spectrum, you MUST provide equal time to the other side. This was government interfering in business with a heavy hand and it lead to some really boring radio. Also it was really easy to cheat. A station could put all of it's "liberal" programming on during the day (for example) and all their "conservative" programming on overnight when no one was listening and they could still be in compliance with the law.

Rep. Kucinich says this is because liberal views are not getting "equal time" in talk radio and in the blogosphere (apparently he has not heard of the Daily Kos which has traffic that dwarfs what most conservative bloggers get but I digress). However, is that really the case?

As I discussed previously, scientists who deviate from the Al Gore "man made global warming is a reality" matra are routinely stripped of their jobs and their funding. However, it is not just the MMGW activists that use these tactics.

But the MMGW activists are entitled to their heartfelt opinions aren't they? Of course they are, and their opinions should be respected. Just as they respect the heartfelt opinions of conservatives right?????

"That people on the political left have a certain set of opinions, just as people do in other parts of the ideological spectrum, is not surprising. What is surprising, however, is how often the opinions of those on the left are accompanied by hostility and even hatred.
Particular issues can arouse passions here and there for anyone with any political views. But, for many on the left, indignation is not a sometime thing. It is a way of life.
How often have you seen conservatives or libertarians take to the streets, shouting angry slogans? How often have conservative students on campus shouted down a visiting speaker or rioted to prevent the visitor from speaking at all?
The source of the anger of liberals, "progressives" or radicals is by no means readily apparent. The targets of their anger have included people who are non-confrontational or even genial, such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.
It is hard to think of a time when Karl Rove or Dick Cheney has even raised his voice but they are hated like the devil incarnate.
There doesn't even have to be any identifiable individual to arouse the ire of the left. "Tax cuts for the rich" is more than a political slogan. It is incitement to anger. " (emphasis mine)

I do find it "enlightening" that this same group of people that "hate" the thought of anything conservative are the same ones that are advocating hate speech legislation! Some would say that there might be some historical parallels to be made here.

""Why don't you go f--- yourself?" That was how House Democrat Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel reportedly responded to a Politico reporter's request – made "in the effort for openness and disclosure" – to sit in on a caucus debate over the language of a lobbying bill. "

Now I will leave aside the snide remark about Vice President Cheney saying the same thing and getting in hot water for now. What I will say is that this reaction, to a member of the media's request to sit in on a caucus debate, just goes to show the elitist arrogance of the left. It is this kind of attitude that got the Republican Caucus in trouble last year. You would think that Rep. Emanuel - as head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee - would be well aware of that little fact.

Dialog

AAA has a post up today that really caught my eye. He linked to a City Journal diary that summarizes a problem that Conservatives face on a daily basis.

"The thing I like best about being a conservative is that I don’t have to lie. I don’t have to pretend that men and women are the same. I don’t have to declare that failed or oppressive cultures are as good as mine. I don’t have to say that everyone’s special or that the rich cause poverty or that all religions are a path to God. I don’t have to claim that a bad writer like Alice Walker is a good one or that a good writer like Toni Morrison is a great one. I don’t have to pretend that Islam means peace.
Of course, like everything, this candor has its price. A politics that depends on honesty will be, by nature, often impolite. Good manners and hypocrisy are intimately intertwined, and so conservatives, with their gimlet-eyed view of the world, are always susceptible to charges of incivility. It’s not really nice, you know, to describe things as they are."

He also nails liberalism with the cold hard truth.

"This is leftism’s great strength: it’s all white lies. That’s its only advantage, as far as I can tell. None of its programs actually works, after all. From statism and income redistribution to liberalized criminal laws and multiculturalism, from its assault on religion to its redefinition of family, leftist policies have made the common life worse wherever they’re installed. But because it depends on—indeed is defined by—describing the human condition inaccurately, leftism is nothing if not polite. With its tortuous attempts to rename unpleasant facts out of existence—he’s not crippled, dear, he’s handicapped; it’s not a slum, it’s an inner city; it’s not surrender, it’s redeployment—leftism has outlived its own failure by hiding itself within the most labyrinthine construct of social delicacy since Victoria was queen.
This is no small thing. To rewrite the rules of courteous behavior is to wield enormous power. I see it in Southern California, in the bleeding heart of leftism, where I live. I’ve been banned from my monthly poker game, lost tennis partners, lost friends—not because I’m belligerent but because I’ve wondered aloud if the people shouldn’t be allowed to make their own abortion laws, say, or if the world might not be a better place without the UN.
It’s a rotten feeling. I sometimes think that I’d rather be deemed evil than a boor. Wickedness has some flair to it, even a whiff of radicalism. If you molest a child, there’s always a chance that you can get the ACLU to defend you as a cultural innovator. But if you make a remark at table about the destructive social effects of broken homes and then discover that your dinner partner is a divorcée—trust me, you feel like a real louse. It’s manners, not morals, that lay the borderlines of our behavior."

This is where AAA steps in.

"Far too often we back down for fear of ruining the party or conversation. Far too often our leaders and officials don’t want to be seen as mean or uncaring.
Is it better to give a man a fish, or teach him how to fish so he will never need your handouts again?
Liberals will give the man someone else’s fish, and then tax the other fishermen.
I’m tired of watching leading Republicans turn spineless in the face of elections. I’m tired of Republicans backing away from the ideological battle we are in. I am tired of being “nice” at dinners abnd parties, just because.
Until we conservatives and Republicans are willing to speak our minds and argue on behalf of our values, we will never win the hearts and minds of the average voters. The DFL could care less where and when they aspouse their liberal agenda. So why are we?"

I certainly agree - conservatives need to step up the defense of the philosophy. We need to be able to stand up and defend what we believe and why - but that does not mean that we have to be mean, confrontational or rude about it. When debating issues, I have always let the words of a wise philosoper guide me - I speak the truth in love. My experience has been that when I do speak the truth of conservatism in a loving, gentle manner, I get one of two possible responses. I either get a thoughtfull "I hadn't thought of it that way" or I get "YOU BEOTCH". Sadly, too many liberals, when presented with a calm, factual argument resort to name calling in response. It does not need to be that way, but it is. However, I will not back away from a rational defense of my ideals. Our leaders need to start doing the same.

Health care for vets

Much has been said about the growing controversy surrounding the Veterans Administration Medical system of late. Whether it is in DC or here in Minnesota, our veterans are not getting the care that they deserve. The Logical Husband is former US Army. He has been out for 17 years now. This is nothing new.

After the Logical Husband left the military, he went to work in telecommunications. As the result of a couple of job transfers, he (and I) ended up working at the VAMC in Madison Wisconsin. The VAMC Madison was under scrutiny the year we went there because several veterans had died from heat stroke in the 8th floor ICU that previous summer. We saw a lot of good and bad things at the VA when we worked there. To the point where the Logical Husband told me that if he ever got injured on the job or had a heart attack, he wanted me to grab him by the ankle and drag him over to the adjacent University Medical Center!

With that in mind, I think I hit upon a solution to the problem. What the US Government needs to do is they need to put more money into the VA system. Oh I can hear you know..."OK Miss Conservative Know-it-all Hypocrit - where are you gonna get the money?" Well, if you listen to the Democrats there is only a limited, never changing pool of money that we can use. So my solution is to take the medical dollars that the being spent every year to provide free health care to illegal immigrants and give it to the veterans that have sacrificed their health for the country! Just think what an additional couple of hundred million dollars in the VA system could get these wounded heros.

I have nothing against these illegal immigrants, but these veterans deserve to have the best of health care, given what they have been through. If the illegals need health care, well then they can buy it like the rest of us.

However, I know our friends on the left will be quick to reject that idea...just as they are quick to lay the blame for a 50 year old problem at the foot of President Bush.

Just a couple of quick thoughts

I've been rather busy lately, helping out friends with a couple of projects and that has really cut into the blogging time. However, I wanted to start the day with a couple of quick items that I hope will spark discussion.

First - why is it when an Evangelical Church makes available a voters guide (that is published by an outside interest like the League of Women Voters) to their congregants, they get into trouble with church/state watchdog groups. Yet Democratic candidates can get away with campaigning in the pulpit? Can you say double standard?

Second, am I the only one wondering if John Edwards has figured out the brouhaha over Amanda Marcotte yet? I mean he hires a woman who calls Christians "godbags" and now he is miffed when Ann Coulter returns the "compliment". Don't get me wrong...I think Ann stepped way over the line. I thought what she said at CPAC was in extremely poor taste. I have heard Ann's defenders and I think their excuses ring as hollow as Amanada Marcotte's lefty defenders excuses did. However, for Edwards to so vocally express his indignation when it took him a week to even respond to L'Affaire Marcotte seems just a wee bit hypocritical to me.

But then again, I just a right wing "godbag". Obviously I'm just not as smart as our friends on the left are.

And they're off!

Captain Ed caught something from the Sunday shows that is going to cause major problems for the BDS sufferers.

"It has been amusing to see Democrats in Congress attempt to explain away their votes for the war in Iraq over the past year. Most of them have settled on the excuse that the Bush administration deceived them in October 2002 into authorizing military force based on the exact same intelligence that moved them to declare official American policy of regime change in 1998. The Democrats won a majority in the midterms by stoking Bush Derangement Syndrome, but for 2008 they face a daunting task -- winning elections without using the retiring George Bush as a bogeyman.
John Edwards has found a solution by shifting blame yet again, and in the process exposing the "Bush lied" meme as a hypocritical dodge. In his Sunday appearance on Meet the Press, Edwards attempted to excuse his vote on the AUMF by blaming Clinton administration officials for confirming the intel coming from the Bush administration (via McQ at QandO, emphases mine):
MR. RUSSERT: “ A grave threat to America,” do you still believe that?
SEN. EDWARDS: No.
MR. RUSSERT: Why were you so wrong?
SEN. EDWARDS: For the same reason a lot of people were wrong. You know, we—the intelligence information that we got was wrong. I mean, tragically wrong. On top of that I’d—beyond that, I went back to former Clinton administration officials who gave me sort of independent information about what they believed about what was happening with Saddam’s weapon—weapons programs. They were also wrong. And, based on that, I made the wrong judgment. ...
MR. RUSSERT: But it seems as if, as a member of the intelligence committee, you just got it dead wrong, and that you even ignored some caveats and ignored people who were urging caution.
SEN. EDWARDS: Well, I, I, I would—first of all, I don’t want to defend this. Let me be really clear about this. I think anybody who wants to be president of the United States has got to be honest and open, be willing to admit when they’ve done things wrong. One of the things, unfortunately, that’s happened in Iraq is we’ve had a president who was completely unmoving, wouldn’t change course, wouldn’t take any responsibility or admit that he’d made any mistakes. And I think America, in fact the world has paid a huge price for that. So I accept my responsibility. I’m not defending what I did. Because what happened was the information that we got on the intelligence committee was, was relatively consistent with what I was getting from former Clinton administration officials. I told you a few minutes ago I was concerned about giving this president the authority, and I turned out to be wrong about that." (emphasis in the original)

Now a lot of conservatives (myself included) have been saying this every time we encounter a sufferer of BDS. It's nice to see one of them finally admit it. What makes it even better is that this admission comes from sheer political opportunism. Edwards knows that the Democrats base is firmly against the war effort. In order to appeal to that base, many candidates are having to justify their votes for the authorization to invade Iraq.

What's even better is by doing this, Edwards hopes to damage the front runner in the Democrats Presidential sweepstakes.

"So now he's blaming members of the Clinton administration for lying to him as well. That's certainly convenient. After all, Hillary Clinton is his biggest competitor for the nomination, and shifting blame to her husband for the Iraq war would suit his needs perfectly. He can now argue that he was no sap -- he checked on the information and got the same answer from the previous Democratic administration.
However, this opens up a completely new problem for Edwards and the rest of the Democrats. They have claimed for at least the last two years that Bush Lied (TM), that the entire basis of the war was based on his deceptions about the intelligence. Their campaigns have created an impetus for impeachment in some Democratic circles based on this supposed set of lies. Now John Edwards, years later, claims that Clinton administration officials gave him essentially the same analysis about WMD in Iraq -- exposing the Democrats as liars and smear artists themselves." (emphasis in the original)

Ed (as usual) nails it as usual! It will be fun to see the fall out of the remarks that former Senator Edwards made. It if becomes the meme for the press and the rest of the Democrats field of hopefulls, it could spell trouble for Senator Hillary Clinton. Then again, knowing the Clinton political machine, this meme could spell trouble for her opponents. One thing that Republicans and Democrats alike will admit - Mrs. Clinton is ambitious and she does whatever it takes to fulfill those ambitions. Anyone who gets between Hillary and what she wants usually ends up getting bowled over!

Watching politicians jockey for position going into primary season has always been entertaining. This year could be even more entertaining!