Kindly take that apology and shove it

Q: What did Senators Daniel Akaka, Jeff Bingaman, Barbara Boxer, Robert Byrd, Lincoln Chaffee, Kent Conrad, Jon Corzine, Mark Dayton, Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold, Bob Graham, Daniel Inouye, Jim Jeffords, Ted Kennedy, Patrick Leahy, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, Jack Reed, Paul Sarbanes, Debbie Stabenow, Paul Wellstone and Ron Wyden know and when did they know it?

A: They knew in 2002 that the president of the United States was, at best, a disingenuous messenger. They knew Saddam was contained. They knew U.N. inspectors were searching for nasty bugs and chemical monstrosities and coming up empty. They knew heebie-jeebie tales of airborne drones and aluminum tubes and mushroom clouds were literally unbelievable.

They knew fanciful justifications for preventive and preemptive wars were geopolitically suicidal, unAmerican and just plain immoral. They knew that American troops thrust into the Middle East powder keg were a smoldering fuse. And they knew that no matter how politically gratifying an "Aye" vote might be, their war-authorization duty was to block the war's authorization.

Many of their Senate colleagues who failed in that duty now plead ignorance and manipulation; an otherworldly defense, since others served the same cooked intelligence failed to be ignorantly manipulated.

Hence the erstwhile prowar crowd -- some of whom now seek a promotion -- were carrier victims of either breathtaking gullibility or simplistic brainwashing or homicidal opportunism, "pure and simple," to quote the transparent manipulator. And everyone knows it -- a hyperbolic phrase I generally avoid, except in this case everyone really does know it.

But honest admissions aren't deployed by the aspiring higher-office bunch. Instead, they treat us to brazen insults to our own intelligence, which somehow, and somewhat uniquely, I guess, resists manipulation.

Most commonly we're treated to, "If I knew then what I know now, I would not have voted 'Aye,'" which is sold as heroic humility, but is in reality, as already suggested, little more than an admission of staggering malfeasance, since others less gullible or opportunistic or more immune to manipulation did know then what they know now, and appropriately voted "Nay."

Their shaky mea culpa, of course, is a product of reversed winds of war; but its origin was a prophylactic against the dreaded charge of Democratic weakness on national security matters. They wanted the electorate to know they're prepared to be every bit as ghoulish and irresponsible as Republicans in unleashing deadly firepower, no matter how flimsy the evidential excuse.

But one candidate has taken an even more insulting approach in deflecting the "soft on national security" assault.

"If the most important thing to any of you is choosing someone who did not cast that vote or has said his vote was a mistake, then there are others to choose from," she offered a New Hampshire crowd Saturday -- without adding, "thankfully."

"She has argued to associates in private discussions that Mr. Gore and Mr. Kerry lost, in part, because they could not convince enough Americans that they were resolute on national security," explained campaign associates. Her "image as a strong leader, in turn, is critical to her hopes of becoming the nation’s first female president.... Apologizing might hurt that image," one adviser further explained.

Yet the lingering question of an apology, whether forthcoming in time or not, wildly misses the relevant point (although an honest apology, "I knew my vote was depraved, but I wanted to cover my butt," would come closer). Such an apology is not the objective. It's too late -- thousands of deaths and a half-trillion dollars too late -- for that.

The objective, rather, is a nominee who lacks a record of grotesque gullibility, easy manipulation, or lethal opportunism. Is that too much to ask of someone asking to be commander in chief?

Comments

[marlow]

I share the sentiments here, except that I recall Barbara Boxer voting against the war resolution. I wrote a zillion e-mails imploring her not to (not that it mattered). Feinstein went ahead and voted for it which pissed me off to no end. Just a minor detail, I understand, which really does nothing to erase the sad fact of Democratic collusion. When our national karmic bill comes due, their weakness ensures we will all pay through the nose.

[Helen Rainier]

I had my doubts about the "War on Iraq" before it happened. There are many reasons why:

1. The continual overflights conducted by both the US and Britain after Gulf One.

2. The inspections conducted by UNSCOM after Gulf One, and the speeches and articles written by amongst others, Scott Ritter and Hans Blix prior to the war.

3. The fact that the countries who would have been most threatened if Hussein had WMD -- the other Arab countries -- advised against the War.

4. The UN Security Council debated the "evidence" and disagreed with it.

5. The CIA's debriefing of Kamel Hussein (Hussein's son-in-law who headed Iraq's WMD program prior to Gulf One) after he defected to Jordan. He told the CIA that there were no more WMD -- they had all been destroyed.

There were too many red flags indicating something was amiss about what the Bushistas were advocating.

For any of these legislators to now say that if they had known then what they now know simply doesn't wash in my book.

I admire and respect those legislators (former and still serving) who at least have the courage to make no excuses and recant their view. At least they admit they were wrong.

As much as I would love to see either a female or non-white President before I die, I am unable to support Ms. Clinton. She's doing this for her political ambitions and I don't accept that.

[marlow]

My apologies, Mr. Carpenter, not enough coffee this morning, and now I see you listed the senators who indeed voted against the resolution. Thank God my feet are clean, now that they are both wedged into my mouth...But Hillary will never get my vote unless and until she comes clean and apologizes for her craven vote. Wingnuts love to laugh over statements like that. It's called principle, something lost to their party long ago.

[ssg13565]

Asking Hillary if her original war vote was a mistake is the wrong question.

Better to ask why these other politicians figured it out before the war, but she was duped by Bush?

I think that is now the pertinent
question that needs an answer.

[Jay Randal]

It is too late for the Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq to apologize for doing so, but it is NOT too late for them to vote to stop funding that fiasco. If they vote to keep funding it, then they become hypocrites and accomplices in Bush's Iraq quagmire.

[Jay Randal]

It is too late for the Democrats who voted to authorize the invasion of Iraq to apologize for doing so, but it is NOT too late for them to vote to stop funding that fiasco. If they vote to keep funding it, then they become hypocrites and accomplices in Bush's Iraq quagmire.

[max]

Even if everything that the administration said was correct in the runup to the Iraq war, it still does not give the USA the right to kill all of those people. Arabs and moslems need the bomb just to get to the bargaining table, not to use it. That would be suicide.

[Tom Murphy]

Bush must be impeached in order to prevent him from damaging our security and needlessly getting who knows how many more Americans killed. It is past time to put a stop to this self declared "War President." The man has proven that he is not fit to be Commander in Chief. As unimaginable as it sounds, three times now he has made it clear that he doesn't even know why he attacked Iraq. Contrary to the perception of many, the press doesn't hold him accountable. Bush has lied several times to the American people, a recent time he actually admitted to it and still the mainstream media was unwilling to call him a lair! In fact the Washington Post went as far as censoring one of their own articles.

We may have little time left. We must insist that our representatives uphold the U.S. Constitution, it is the only way we are going to avert a potential crisis of horrific proportions.
http://representativepress.blogspot.com/2007/02/avert-potential-crisis-of-horrific.html

[Tyler T]

"[T]here's not a dime's worth of difference between" Republicans and Democrats. The Democrats willingly went along with the War in Iraq, suspension of Habeas Corpus, opening mail, banning books like "America Deceived' from Wikipedia, stealing private lands (Kelo decision), warrant-less wiretapping and refusing to investigate 9/11 properly. They are both guilty of treason. Support indy media.
Last link (before Google Books bends to gov't Will and drops the title):
http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?&isbn=0-595-38523-0

[Gone with the Wind]

That's not good enough to my eye's. I want them to get down on their knee's and beg me. Even so, they would only celebrate my return by forcing more advertisers down my throat. The media mafia's superficial feelings of guilt and croc tears will last as long as it takes Wolf Blitzer to tell me how much he loves America and all the sniff's and flashing eye's that go with it. That I know will be quickly replaced by laughter while some actor tells me to buy the latest insurance plan from a company with a masonic logo.

[Anastasia]

Cool!.. Nice work...

[Teofila]

Lets go now!

[Romualda]

Best site.