NationStates Jolt Archive

The Democratic party appears to have finally come up with a way to explain why so many of its elected leaders gave President Bush the authority to wage war in Iraq.

Three simple words: "We were duped."

A parade of top Democrats have contended in recent days that they would have been anti-war in 2002 had they known then what they now believe to be true: that the Bush administration manipulated the intelligence in order to build a bogus case for war. In pursuit of that theme, on Tuesday, Senate Democrats successfully demanded that their GOP colleagues quit stalling and finish a long-promised investigation that could determine whether the war planners were dishonest.

Many Democrats believe it's good politics these days to say that they were lied to. This message, actually a rite of confession, is designed to help their erstwhile pro-war politicians get back in sync with the party's liberal anti-war base. That's especially important for some of the original pro-war Democrats who want to run for president in 2008. After all, liberal voters tend to dominate the Democratic primaries, and they're expecting to hear apologies.

Hence, Sen. John Kerry (who wants to try again) said in a speech Oct. 26: "The country and the Congress were misled into war. I regret that we were not given the truth ... knowing what we know now, I would not have gone to war in Iraq." Hence, Tom Daschle (the deposed Senate Democratic leader, who is weighing a campaign) said in a speech Wednesday that senators voted incorrectly because "on so many fronts, we were misled."

At least four other Democratic senators who voted to authorize war have used the dupe argument in recent days, including Christopher Dodd of Connecticut (who periodically voices White House ambitions) and Tom Harkin of Iowa (who now calls his war support "one of the biggest voting mistakes of my career"). And once having confessed, these Democrats believe they have sufficient credibility to call for the phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq.

But not all the prominent Democrats who voted with Bush have embraced the dupe message. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton -- who continues to exasperate the liberal base -- hasn't renounced her vote; when asked about it the other day by NPR, she dodged: "I can't talk about this on the fly; it's too important." Sen. Evan Bayh, another presidential hopeful, hasn't renounced. Former Sen. John Edwards, another prospective candidate, hasn't renounced.

Their reticence might stem in part from awareness of the George Romney rule of politics: Gullibility is not a character asset for a presidential candidate.

The late George Romney (father of current Massachusetts Republican Gov. Mitt Romney) was the anointed front-runner of the 1968 GOP presidential race -- until he tried to explain, in a radio interview during the summer of 1967, why he had renounced his previous support for the Vietnam war. The Michigan governor complained that, while visiting the hot zone, he had been duped by the brass into backing the war:

"I just had the greatest brainwashing that anybody can get when you go over to Vietnam. Not only by the generals, but also by the diplomatic corps over there, and they did a very thorough job."

Romney plummeted in the polls, and his candidacy soon evaporated; voters didn't like the idea of electing someone who admitted he was capable of being fooled. And, as many political observers argue, that's the lesson for Democrats today.

Their reticence might stem in part from awareness of the George Romney rule of politics: Gullibility is not a character asset for a presidential candidate.

And neither are dishonesty or stupidity, the two options left for Republicans to use to defend the case made for the war. Either the intelligence was faulty and they knew about it, or the intelligence was faulty and they didn't know about it.

And neither are dishonesty or stupidity, the two options left for Republicans to use to defend the case made for the war. Either the intelligence was faulty and they knew about it, or the intelligence was faulty and they didn't know about it.

I'm talking about which Democratic candidate will make it to be nominated - I'm not talking about Republicans. As you said, that point is moot.

Answer the question, do you think it's smart for any Democratic candidate for President to say, "I was fooled!" ?

I'm talking about which Democratic candidate will make it to be nominated - I'm not talking about Republicans. As you said, that point is moot.

Answer the question, do you think it's smart for any Democratic candidate for President to say, "I was fooled!" ?

No I do not. But in a campaign where both candidates are going to have to talk ad infinitum about why they voted the way they did for the war, I don't think "I was fooled" will hurt the Democratic candidate any more than what the Republican candidate will have to say. Overall trust in our government will be down, but compared to each other it will be about equal.

Its not relevant to the case for war, as paid out in the Congressional Resolution, because the Resolution was about enforcing a ceasefire agreement that no one can assert Saddam followed all the provisions of.

No I do not. But in a campaign where both candidates are going to have to talk ad infinitum about why they voted the way they did for the war, I don't think "I was fooled" will hurt the Democratic candidate any more than what the Republican candidate will have to say. Overall trust in our government will be down, but compared to each other it will be about equal.

Well, if as you posit in your previous post two possible answers for Republicans, if you have a Republican who says, "I was fooled by the intelligence" (instead of saying I lied about the intelligence), then you have to give him a pass if you hear a Democratic opponent say, "I was fooled..." because both are fools.

Whatever happened to saying, "I voted that way at the time, but in light of new revelations and hindsight, it turns out that was the wrong way to vote."

I'm not sure that admitting a mistake is a negative character flaw.

Well, if as you posit in your previous post two possible answers for Republicans, if you have a Republican who says, "I was fooled by the intelligence" (instead of saying I lied about the intelligence), then you have to give him a pass if you hear a Democratic opponent say, "I was fooled..." because both are fools.

Precisely. In an election year where more or less every candidate is going to have to explain in what respect they screwed up, no candidate is going to be any worse off for the way they admit they screwed up.


Whatever happened to saying, "I voted that way at the time, but in light of new revelations and hindsight, it turns out that was the wrong way to vote."

I'm not sure that admitting a mistake is a negative character flaw.

"I voted that way at the time, but in light of new revelations and hindsight, it turns out that was the wrong way to vote" has been termed "flip-flop". Admitting a mistake became a huge character flaw in 2004. No politician would make that same admission again.

So they are admitting they are human? Firebomb the party :rolleyes:.

Is it a good idea to say, "We were duped - we believed the lies"

Only if we were and we did.

I for one was not and did not, hence, if I were to say it, I would be telling a lie.

I think that if, at election time, the prevailing attitude in the US is along the lines of "that son of a bitch lied to us" then a candidate would do well to say "it is all right, he tricked me too."

I'm not sure that admitting a mistake is a negative character flaw.
Get real. Bush built most of his 2004 campaign against Kerry's flip-flops. This country has selective memory as to when people make mistakes.

I think that if, at election time, the prevailing attitude in the US is along the lines of "that son of a bitch lied to us" then a candidate would do well to say "it is all right, he tricked me too."

No, people would rather hear "he tricked me too, but this is what I'm going to do about it as an alternative".

Answer the question, do you think it's smart for any Democratic candidate for President to say, "I was fooled!" ?

It would probably be smarter to say "They lied" instead of "I was fooled", since it doesn't imply that you indeed believed the lies and it puts the blame on the other side. If someone would question you further, you could also say that "you were always sceptical" or something.

And neither are dishonesty or stupidity, the two options left for Republicans to use to defend the case made for the war. Either the intelligence was faulty and they knew about it, or the intelligence was faulty and they didn't know about it.
Hear, hear. It's more defensible to point the finger at the administration and say "they lied to us and we trusted them, which was the wrong thing to do" than to continue to say "they lied to us and we still trust them, even though they've fucked it up beyond all recognition." Better yet is to never have trusted them in the first place, like me. :D

Interesting.

A lot of Republican supporters have been saying "Bush didn't lie. He got faulty intel" for the past couple of years - explaining that it was all a reasonable response to reasonable suppositions, and that GW should still be commended for following through with determination on what he thought based on available information.

But if it turns out that there was deliberate deception, the response to the Democrats is : "What? Were you fucking stupid or something?!"


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiggggghhhhttttt.

Does hypocricy know no bounds?

Interesting side-effect of this of course is the following. No current Republican Senator has a shot in '08.

Why?

Either they were part of the deception, in which case they have commited the indictable offense of lying to Congress, or they also were complete idiots. After all, they ALL voted to go to war too!


See, casting stones for believing a lie is just guaranteed to bounce back. The Republicans have to either call themselves liars or criminals to pursue this line of reasoning!

Does hypocricy know no bounds?
Nope. It never does.

Quite evidently, yes, snce it portrays the perfidy of teh administration through compelling it to reveal either whether it prosecuted war in the knowledge of that it was unjustified, or under the pretence that it was.