16 Comments Add your own

• 1. Menlo Bob  |  July 24th, 2008 at 7:11 pm

  One of the things that I think many of your readers find amusing is how frequently your links take the reader to partisan sites. In this case you’re making a point about partisanship by directing our attention to Josh Marshall’s very partisan Talking Points Memo. This does very little to convince the reader of anything other than you are very well read in that area.

• 2. Pat Cunningham  |  July 24th, 2008 at 7:22 pm

  OK, Bob. Why don’t you give me a list of nonpartisan sites where I can get good political material? And don’t include any from the mainstream media, because they’re allegedly all in Obama’s hip pocket. And don’t include any right-wing sites; they’re partisan, too. One other thing: The focus in this post is on the bias of Fox News and its poll questions. Just because my attention to those questions came via Talking Points Memo doesn’t make those questions any less biased. Or do you think Talking Points Memo made them up in a dishonest effort to discredit Fox? Gosh, Bob, how are we going to get out of this pickle? How are we going to find nonpartisanship in a blogosphere of almost total bias? How am I going to find any Web sites that will meet your high standards of objectivity? What a quandary!

  Oh, and let me compliment you on your keen discernment of what “many of your [my] readers find amusing.” I’m sure they appreciate you speaking for them.

• 3. G Man  |  July 24th, 2008 at 8:24 pm

  You comment does not make any sense? The questions by the two you use as examples were questions directed at the people running. I feel fox is much more balanced than anything from the other side. They don’t follow Barak around like he is the second coming. By the way factcheck.org does a pretty good job of not being bias.

• 4. Craig Knauss  |  July 24th, 2008 at 10:34 pm

  Fox could have asked:

  Who is most likely to have a stroke? or

  Who is most likely to belong to a White Supremecist group? or

  Who is most likely to employ illegals on his farm?

  or any other equally offensive question that favors Obama instead of McCain. Now that would have been “Fair and Balanced”.

• 5. Menlo Bob  |  July 25th, 2008 at 1:20 am

  If you’re making a point about unfair questions posed by a Fox News poll then point to that. When you present it via TPM it looks like you accepted their word as gospel and felt no need to look further. Your point about the questions was a fair one and is the reason why people ought not accept them without this kind of rational evaluation.

• 6. LD  |  July 25th, 2008 at 8:26 am

  Have you seen this one Pat?

  http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12035.html

  And now, here’s my impression of Faux news / right wing bloggers:

  No birthday of Christmas presents?
  OMG dey must be seeckret mooslimz!

  I’ll just ignore the part about the presents from Santa and the birthday sleepovers.

• 7. echo4charlie  |  July 25th, 2008 at 9:15 am

  Pat:

  I’ve got some partisan comments for you (listed below). You talk about right-wing flip-flopping, that I thought you’d enjoy these. I’ll bet you agreed with these, before you disagreed with them, but, if they were to become Senator Obama’s stance, and again popular, I’d bet you’d agree with them again. The following comments are fact, and have to do with the war in Iraq. And, they were made by your precious liberal leaders, whom you so adore. I challenge you to prove falsehood to any of these (listed below) comments.

  They were all identifying Iraq as a problem, and credible threat, until it became unpopular, at which point, although they felt actions in Iraq were necessary, they want to move for impeachment of our President due to acting as they instructed we needed to (when it was a popular notion). Once it becaume unpopular, though, the crucifiction and slander of our President (without any liberal conviction) began, as these very people tried to distance themselves as influence on our decision to invade Iraq, and address the “weapons of mass destruction” problem.

  But, what of these folks. Defend them. What makes Senator Obama any different than his mentors and peirs?

  At least Senator McCain is holding his stance. The same stance he’s had since the beginning.

  A change we can believe in? Sure, I believe Senator Obama will change whatever he has to for approval ratings, and will take the popular way out of unpopular decisions (which won’t make it the right decision). I believe (in) that aspect of who he is.

  Now, with beg for pardon, and no further ado:

  “One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.That is our bottom line.”

  President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998-This was a quote from President Clinton during a presentation at the Pentagon defending a decision to conduct military strikes against Iraq.

  “If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction program.”

  President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998-Bill Clinton went to the Pentagon on this occasion to be briefed by top military officials about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.
  His remarks followed that briefing.

  “Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face.”

  Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998-This is a quote from Albright during an appearance at Ohio State University by Albright, who was Secretary of State for Bill Clinton.

  “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”

  Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998-
  This was at the same Ohio State University appearance as Madeline Albright.

  “We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq’s refusal to end its weapons of mass destructionprograms.”

  Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998-According to the U.S. Senate website, the text of this letter was signed by several Senators, both Democrat and Republican, including Senator John McCain and Joseph Lieberman.

  “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”

  Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998-The text of this statement by Nancy Pelosi is posted on her congressional website.

  “Hussein has .. chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies.”

  Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999-
  This was from an appearance Albright made in Chicago.
  She was addressing the embargo of Iraq that was in effect at the time and criticism that it may have prevented needed medical supplies from getting into the country. Albright said, “There has never been an embargo against food and medicine. It’s just that Hussein has just not chosen to spend his money on that. Instead, he has chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction, and palaces for his cronies.”

  “There is no doubt that … Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies.”

  Letter to President Bush, Signed by nine senators including Democrat Joe Lieberman. It urged President Bush to take quicker action against Iraq.

  “We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them.”
  Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002-These were remarks from Senator Levin to a Senate committee on that date.

  “We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country.”

  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002-This and the quote below was part of prepared remarks for a speech in San Francisco to The Commonwealth Club.

  “Iraq’s search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power.”

  Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

  “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.”

  Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002-Part of a speech he gave at Johns Hopkins. Sure, he was probably drunk…..why wouldn’t he have been (and, he probably drove, or swerved, himself to Johns Hopkins, too)…..but, still…..

  “The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
  We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons…”

  Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002-On the floor of the Senate during debate over the resolution that would authorize using force against Iraq.

  “I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force– if necessary– to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security.”

  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002-Senator Kerry’s comments were made to the Senate as part of the same debate over the resolution to use force against Saddam Hussein.

  “There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years … We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction.”

  Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002-Senator Rockefeller’s statements were a part of the debate over using force against Saddam Hussein.

  “He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do”

  Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002-Senator Waxman’s contribution to the Senate debate over going to war.

  “In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons.”

  Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002-Senator Clinton acknowledged the threat of Saddam Hussein, but, in all fairness, said she did not feel that using force at that time was a good option.

  “Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation … And now he is miscalculating America’s response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real …”

  Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003-In a speech to Georgetown University.

• 8. swede  |  July 25th, 2008 at 11:03 am

  So, President Bush’s stance on the Iraqi War, and the belief in existence of WMDs was also supported by Democratic Leaders, until the war became unpopular?

  It doesn’t surprise me.

  The people who’s comments are listed above are some of the President’s most outspoken opponents on the issue!

• 9. Craig Knauss  |  July 25th, 2008 at 3:04 pm

  Swede think about it. If the ONLY INFORMATION you receive is from the President of the United States, who comes before you, hat in hand, and says that he has received intelligence that Saddam Hussein has WMD and intends to use them on the U.S., are you going to disbelieve him? Early in his administration almost every single person believed him. And why not? We had no other information. I know what’s it’s like from serving on a Grand Jury and making a decision from information presented by the Prosecutor’s office. We seldom had heard both sides when we were asked to vote on an indictment. It wasn’t until later that Congress and the country found out most of Bush’s info was contrived.

• 10. Mike Carroll  |  July 25th, 2008 at 3:59 pm

  Craig-you might want to check the dates on some of the quotes posted by Echocharlie. They are during the Clinton administration.Also, a number of those quoted would have been on various congressional committees and would have had access to the same intelligence information as an administration. In other words, your conclusion is wrong.
  As far as being on a Grand Jury-the old joke in legal circles is that you can indict a ham sandwich. That is the way the system works.

• 11. Pat Cunningham  |  July 25th, 2008 at 4:16 pm

  Mike: I am truly and deeply flattered that you employed that “ham sandwich” line, which was first used on this blog by me in a reply to you in comment No. 9 on this post from back in April: http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2008/04/23/karl-roves-name-comes-up-in-the-rezko-case-and-not-it-a-good-way/

• 12. Mike Carroll  |  July 26th, 2008 at 5:58 am

  Although I do live my life to make you happy, I could not credit you with that comment since the first time I heard it was in Law School in the early 70’s

• 13. Pat Cunningham  |  July 26th, 2008 at 7:44 am

  Mike: I didn’t claim to have coined the expression, but I’ll take credit for having jogged your memories of academe. Actually, the expression was coined by Sol Wachtler, the noted New York judge, and it was used in Tom Wolfe’s novel “The Bonfire of the Vanities.”

• 14. Menlo Bob  |  July 26th, 2008 at 7:55 am

  Yeah, but I’m claiming credit for the phrase “you can indict a Spam sandwich”. I’ve also laid claim to the phrase using turkey, BLT, cheese and braunschweiger sandwiches. Various hot sandwiches are under trademark registration to various corporate entities and are thus not in the public domain.

• 15. Pat Cunningham  |  July 26th, 2008 at 8:03 am

  Bob: The indictment of a Spam sandwich would be totally justified.

• 16. Craig Knauss  |  July 28th, 2008 at 8:54 am

  Mike,

  I am aware of the dates of events during the Clinton administration. You will notice that all of them are well before he left office which was January 2001. Where are the quotes that occurred just before he handed the keys to Bush? Information was coming in that some of the earlier assessments had been incorrect. And don’t forget that Bush was president for about a year before we invaded Iraq and that he had been briefed repeatedly that the existence of WMD was highly questionable. Keep in mind that most information is classified and the vast majority of Congress doesn’t get to see it.

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed