Uppity-Negro.com

"The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance. So we had to act and act now."

"Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or
the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons,"
the President said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against
his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked,
Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

--quotes from a US American Forces Press Service report about Bill Clinton's decision to attack Iraq in December 1998

If the right wing is lying now, the left wing would have to have been lying then. So which is it?

Or, as is most likely, the truth somewhere between the two extremes?

Thing is, Clinton didn't go into office with the not-very-explicit goal of attacking/liberating Iraq, so that example doesn't really have anything to do with what I asked about.

Him attacking Bush for turning back Haitian refugees, then doing the same thing after he took office, that I could go with.

And you might not have been around during my rejection of dualism stage. . .

Provide a few examples of the dems lying? To get us in a war? 1965-1968 should do nicely. Mr. Great Society was all about a "president getting into office and doing what [He] Felt Needs to be Done..." That one cost us 55,000. Seems Bush has a lot of killing to do to catch up with the Dems on that one.

Then there was Carter and that whole hostage thing. Do you really think they were surprised when Iran boiled over when the Shah hauled out?

Of course Mogadishu was all about humanitarian aid, not kicking in the doors of various warlords just because they waved their fanny at us.

Yeah, I know. But you'll have to help me get it started before you can put a bomb under it.

Er, again, no, I'm asking about Dems lying -- or at least, not being up front about their intentions -- during an election campaign. Of course the bastards do what they like once they're in office and reacting to stuff, I'm talking about having a Master Plan, not informing the electorate of said Master Plan, then implementing it once they're in office.

Anyone want to try rephrasing this? Apparently, I'm not conveying the idea very well. . .

I am large. I contain multitudes.

Thanks for reminding me of Walt Whitman.

Okay, so, you're question. Well, I seem to recall this fella who had a secret plan to end the War in Viet Nam. That helped get him elected, but then the secret plan turned out not to exist. He also had something to do with bombing Cambodia at a time when that was illegal. What was his name? Dixon? Rick's son? Oh yeah Nixon. That was it. And he was a Demo..no. Wait a minute.

Never mind.

Again, will ring in with Lyndon B., who by all accounts (Pentagon Papers) had Linebacker I and the first troop deployments all ready to go when he made the campaign statement "I seek no wider war." It only went downhill from there. Vietnam was all about master plans hidden from the public.

The examples you site were not made during the '00 campaign, which may explain at least some of the confusion.

Anyone who holds up Nixon without raising Johnson up about 3x higher needs to read more history. Vietnam was, is, and always will be the biggest debacle the Democratic party has ever been responsible for. Responsible for.

If it weren't for Watergate, IMO it's quite possible the democratic party would've imploded outright when Ford got himself elected in '76 (which is IMO probably what would've happened, since at that point direct US involvement in Vietnam would've been ~ 4 years in the past.)

Um, yeah Scott, those Peacenik Republicans were all about just pulling out of 'Nam and letting the dominos fall.

I do grant you the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, though. And the Bay of Pigs, come to think of it.

Dean, let's leave Tricky Dick out of this. I did ask for examples of the Dems doing this sort of thing, after all.

And besides, it was Tricky Dick. The man was congenitally incapable of being honest with anyone.

And besides, it was Tricky Dick. The man was congenitally incapable of being honest with anyone.

[cringe] Even I have to conceed that point.

However, there is an old Vulcan proverb: "Only Nixon could go to China."

Shut up, Kynn. I know what you're going to say. Just shut it.

Poll in the New York Times today showed about 40% support among Iraqis for the invasion. I was really surprised.

Evan, saw a breakdown someplace -- Talking Points Memo, maybe? -- of support from Muslim/Arab/Kurdish folk, and the numbers were, um, not encouraging.

Not that that has anything whatsoever to do with what I asked about.

Think I liked it better when it was mostly women posting comments. They don't do that non sequitur thang so much.

And all seem to be avoiding this thread, come t'think of it. Odd, that.

I just had to chime in and point out (in response to an earlier comment) that "Democratic party" and "left wing" are not necessarily synonymous. To be more explicit, I think if you looked at the continuum of political views using the (very flawed) left-right model, powerful Republicans aren't that far "left" of the furthest-right Americans, but Democrats are so far to the right compared to the leftiest "leftists" that few of them can vote for a Democrat without major qualms. (Except, maybe, for "wingnut" types like Kucinich.) To anyone who claims the horrible record of Democratic presidents and stupid wars means the "left wing" and "right wing" aren't that different in this area, I would say that those Democrats were only about an inch to the left of Nixon.

Also, in response to the LBJ discussion: you should hear some of the dialogue between Johnson and Robert McNamara quoted in The Fog of War. It's really chilling how cavalier LBJ is about stepping up U.S. involvement in Vietnam and stuff. Yuck.

Thanks, Susan. I'd been hoping that the flaws (read, complete stupidity) of the left-right distinction in US politics were pretty clear, but some folks seem to have a desperate need to pretend it actually means something.

Er, am cranky this morning. Please don't think it's directed at you. And if you don't have a blog of your own, you really should think about starting one; you're a rare Voice of Reason, and lord knows we need all of those we can get. . .

Look what I started! I feel so powerful.

Hey, I was just, to use one of my father-in-law's favorite phrases, throwing shit in the game. I wouldn't have said anything if you hadn't quoted Walt Whitman.

And I do agree that Viet Nam was more a Democrat error than a Republican error, but then the Republicans didn't, as was also pointed out above, disown it like a redheaded step-child, now did they?

"A conservative government is an organized hypocrisy."-Benjamin Disraeli

The left-right model is terribly flawed, but a convenient label that, like astronomy, has little meaning and leaves its definition to the one who hears the word. I am actually more dismayed by the liberal-conservative label. I always say I am a liberal, but in the 18th century sense of the word, which leads to lengthy explanations that too few people actually want to hear. (If the current administration is conservative according to traditional usage, then I am the second incarnation of Francois Villon.) Like most people labeled liberal, my views are left of the Democratic party on some things, but sometimes I am with them and sometimes I cut a little right. So the labels are completely useless to me because, while they actually have meanings, they are too often defined by the listener and applied like blankets rather than spotlights. (If you followed that thought process, I'll send you the name of my specialist.)

Whew! Can I ramble sometimes.

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
All this time I've been counting spaces and you've been thinking of something else
-Probably misquoted from memory poem by Archie Ammons and I forgot the title too after all these years