we still remember mitch hedberg

A severed foot is the ultimate stocking stuffer.

Feb 2nd 2008

only mitt romney flip flops?

finally someone said it:

how can people who inveigh against Mitt Romney for changing his positions excuse Huckabee doing it without a peep — especially when, unlike Romney, he’s lacked the honesty simply to admit he was wrong about some things? [source: carol liebau]

you can say the same thing about the other candidates — both democrat and republican — yet only mitt romney is labeled “flip flopper.”

a little background: the reason “flip flopper” became such a damning charge in the first place was because of john kerry, a man who defined his candidacy by changing positions on issues. in the 2004 presidential race, he wanted to have it both ways on the iraq war, claiming, “i voted for [the $87 billion to fund the troops] before i voted against it” (as if this somehow was admirable). mitt romney does not do this. the only candidates who do this today are john mccain and mike huckabee, which will become cringefully obvious if you continue reading this post. the problem with flip-flopping is not that a candidate has evolved, or that he has changed his mind. the frightening thing is when their positions seem to be in constant flux. cue mike huckabee and john mccain. click to visit the encyclopedia of mccain flip-flops for a condensed summary. somewhat selective treatment follows in this post.

immigration. mccain made his immigration flip during the current campaign, after his quasi-amnesty bill was rejected resoundingly by the american people. now he says he will “secure the border first” (before granting 10 million-plus illegal immigrants amnesty?). yet his campaign employs juan hernandez, an open borders advocate who calls the USA and mexico “a region” rather than two countries. he told tim russert on meet the press he would sign his own amnesty bill if he were president and the bill came to his desk. then just days later, he refused to answer the question in a debate.

jobs. in michigan, mccain flipped from one day to the next on whether factory jobs were doomed or if they could be retained. in south carolina, he told americans they would all need to be retrained, whether they were 30 or 50. the following day, he told people factories were still viable in america.

more mccain flip flops (some just minutes apart) on the iraq war, gay marriage, the confederate flag, the religious right, in this damning video about “the double-talk express”

more videos at see also: mccain, not romney, the real flip-flopper

and rocky mountain news: mccain’s the real flip-flopper. the reporter, having examined the news databases, notes:

[I]n the national media, Romney is at least six times more likely to be described as a flip-flopper than McCain.

This does not merely ignore but actually inverts the truth. The fact is that no presidential candidate in either party has flip-flopped as egregiously as McCain on such a wide range of issues.

update, 2/17/08: see also this editorial.

It’s indisputable that Romney changed positions on two issues – abortion and gun rights. Romney readily admits to the reversal on abortion. On gun rights, instead of calling it a flip-flop, it would be more accurate to say that Romney is guilty of exaggerating his relationship with guns and the gun crowd. From a policy perspective nothing changed. He supported and continues to support controls like the Brady Bill and bans on unnecessarily powerful assault weapons.
And that’s it for Romney’s flip-flops, making a grand total of one-and-one-half….

In terms of sheer numbers, McCain makes Romney look like a flip-flop novice….

Given the limited extent of Romney’s changing views, McCain’s charges were outrageous. His deceitful branding of Romney should have been exposed but wasn’t. To the contrary, most “journalists” joined-in, repeating and amplifying the charges from the man they almost always referred to on-air and in-print as the “straight talking John McCain.” Such favorable media branding for McCain left the impression that if it came from St. John’s mouth it must be true.

The press did get one thing right though. There is a Republican candidate who would say or do anything to get elected. And he’s now the presumptive nominee.

huckabee has changed on a whole host of issues, from public benefits for illegal aliens

to taxes

to the human life amendment to first opposing then supporting the troop surge in iraq.

mostly recently, during the campaign season, huckabee has completely switched his views on illegal immigration, a national smoking ban, the confederate flag, cuba, and whether or not to run a positive or negative campaign. again, these are changes he has made in his positions just in the last few weeks, not years ago like mitt romney.

here are mitt’s positions on the issues in 1994.


notice, from this list, he’s changed one position (for the better). compare that to the rest of the remaining primary field, and you see romney is the clear, consistent conservative in the race.

also on hannity and colmes recently, mitt was charged with being “biggest flip-flopper that we have seen run for national office, probably in american political history.” sadly, this claim, raised by democrat rich masters, went unchallenged either by sean hannity or the conservative guest on the panel, kate obenshain.

ALAN COLMES: They’ve misrepresented, Mitt did, her health-care plan.

RICH MASTERS: Yes. Really shocking. I mean, you know — I mean, basically Mitt Romney proposed exactly in Massachusetts some of those exact same things that Hillary Clinton is proposing now. And now all of a sudden, you know, he’s flip-flopped, which shouldn’t come as a surprise. I mean, this guy is clearly the biggest flip-flopper that we have seen run for national office, probably in American political history.

COLMES: He’d be an easier candidate to beat than John McCain, probably….Let’s take a look at this McCain ad.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: As Massachusetts governor, Romney refused to take a position on the Bush tax cut and then increased taxes by $700 million but tried to call them fees. Where does Mitt Romney stand? Whichever way the wind blows.

first, that number is incorrect. it was $245 million. and since when are conservatives opposed to fees? as doug pointed out to me the other day, there is no more libertarian idea than to charge users who actually use services, while leaving the rest of the people alone with their money. this is the difference between a fee and a tax: those who do not use the service do not have the government confiscate and redistribute their money broadly and arbitrarily.

second, the outrageous flip-flopper claim: romney criticized hillary’s plan because it would provide government health care to 47 million people. romney’s plan sought to use the free market to provide health care to the uninsured, and assist the poor with paying their premiums where necessary, not pay their hospital bills, which the state would have paid anyway if there were no plan in place. so denouncing her plan is not “flipping” by any stretch of the word.

at the end of this comparative analysis, given the overwhelming perception that mitt romney is the flip-flopper in this race and no one else; and given that this perception was created and is perpetuated by journalists and political commentators in the national news media; we must conclude one of three things is the case:

(1) members of the news media have been lying to us for some reason.
(2) members of the news media have been too lazy to attempt to verify the claim that mitt romney is somehow the only candidate to have changed positions on issues.
(3) members of the news media are easily duped by liberal politicians.

28 Responses to “only mitt romney flip flops?”

  1. Mitt Romney has a flawed position on Iraq. At the Reagan debate he insinuated, that Iraq attacked America. See for yourself:

  2. Raphael,

    That is an inaccurate analysis of what he said. He said that “when someone attacks America, there will be consequences.” He had just prior to that specifically mentioned 9/11 & Afghanistan in addition to Iraq.

    See for yourself:

  3. bnice

    great post trav…sums up all the flip flopping mccain and huckabee have done. the most important point you make is that huckabee and mccain flip flop more frequently and recently. the media is a joke.

  4. Mitt Romney has a flawed position on Iraq.

    raphael, master splinter has asked that you please stop spouting talking points from the geriatric express and return to the sewer immediately.

  5. Excellent post. Mr. McCain’s campaign reminds me of elementary school debate tactics – filibustering the conversation (you win by not allowing your opponent to say anything), raising the first claim (you win by being the first to call someone out on some hot-button issue – “flip-flopper”), pedantic semantics (you win by picking out one or two words that paint a certain picture – “timetables” or “true conservative”) – and resorting to the dirtiest and ugliest of politicking. He’ll do anything to get elected, similar to his Democratic counterpart, Hillary.

    McCain’s hoping that Tuesday will be definitive for him so he can begin “uniting the Republican party”. How does he plan on doing this? His puerile politicking has brought this election to a new low. He’s causing conservatives to figure out who’ll be the lesser evil between Obama and Clinton.

    All this, and Huckabee is still going after Romney – not McCain?! Huckabee is asking for Mitt Romney to step aside? What in the world is going on?

    If you’re a conspiracy theorist, which I don’t prescribe to, but I like to mull the thoughts around occasionally, this election season provides plenty of material. Is Huckabee dividing the conservative vote to ensure McCain a chance in exchange for a VP ticket, or a spot in the administration? Is McCain dividing the Republican vote to ensure Hillary a chance in exchange for some special favors?

    What a strange election season.

  6. doug

    Driving home from the store last night I was listening to talk radio and a Democrat had called in to say that he was relishing McCain as the GOP nominee. Paraphrasing what he said:

    As a Democrat I think it’s great you guys are going to nominate John McCain. It’s awesome. He is so old. When he’s out there on the campaign trail his frailty will be on display.

    You guys for so long, ever since the Southern Strategy, have appealed to the narrowest, most bigoted part of America and now you’re reaping what you’ve sown. So now many of these Christians won’t vote for Mitt Romney, who is really the candidate that worries me, but that’s your base. That’s the electorate you have. And they won’t vote for a Mormon. [laughter]

    I wondered for a minute if the guy was a conservative plant, but the way he carried on about “Christian bigots” and different liberal talking points, I doubt it.

    Sadly, he is (at least partially) correct.

  7. Having grown up in the same town that Mitt was raised in and having ridden my bike by his father’s house in my teens (George Romney was the best Governor our State ever had – when he in charge, Michigan and Detroit made money hand over fist, it seems everyone had two cars in the garage, a pool and a place up North and American Motors was actually making a profit when he was in charge of that entity), only Mitt gets it. He is the only one who recognizes that with economic power, everything else comes in spades. John McCain will never get it. The Huckleberry will never get it. I’m afraid the GOP is really now the Grand Old Party because the GOP old guard wants to make sure they continue to have a job. They are the problem in DC. This Catholic will always vote for Mitt should his name be on the ballot and if it isn’t, I’ll write his name in.

  8. Ryan, when Iraq didn’t attack America, why does he support the Iraq war?

  9. doug


    Romney has never said that Iraq attacked America. Period.

    If you genuinely are interested in finding out why Romney supports the current effort in Iraq, watch the entire debate (there are nine parts) or utilize Google.

  10. “Romney Believes That “Walking Away” From The Conflict In Iraq Would “Present Grave Risks” To The U.S.” (from

    But he doesn’t explain, why he supported the invasion at the beginning. Any he doesn’t say, how long he wants to keep up the military occupation of Iraq.

  11. Miguel


    Are you serious? I doubt you possibly could be. After the years of debating, blogging, talk shows, etc., you are seriously asking why Romney might have supported the Iraq invasion at the beginning?

    His website probably doesn’t mention why he eats breakfast, or why he puts clothes on to go to debates. Should he post that on his website?

    Quit asking stupid questions. And at least wait a little while if you’re going to respond to this so that there is some modicum of doubt in my mind as to whether you were sitting under your troll bridge (I mean at your computer) waiting someone to take your Iraq war bait.

  12. travis

    raphael, have you been in the sewer for the past 5 years and completely missed the whole iraq war discussion?

    for romney to say it would present grave risks to abandon a diaper democracy to fend for themselves against al-qaeda and iranian extremists is not to say that iraq attacked america. it is nothing more than a responsible, pragmatic foreign policy statement.

  13. Miguel

    Dang, Travis. I think we hit the submit button at the exact same time. Maybe it’s a sign . . . of Raphael’s ignorance.

  14. Ryan, when Iraq didn’t attack America, why does he support the Iraq war?

    See my original response.

    Iraq & Afghanistan are clearly different scenarios. His comment you’re referring to is referring to Afghanistan when speaking about “if someone attacks the US, there will be consequences.” He happened to mention the Iraq conflict as well, but keep in mind, it is a different scenario and his comments do not state that Iraq attacked us.

    Be sure to contextualize individual statements within the framework of what these politicians’ positions are as a whole.

  15. Miguel, if the answer is so obvious, why don’t you just answer the question? Why has Romney supported the Iraq invasion at the beginning?

    travis, your statement doesn’t explain, why Romney supported the Iraq invasion at the beginning. Mr. Duelfer from the Iraq Study Group clearly says in my video, that Saddam would have never supported al-qaeda in any kind of way.

    And don’t bring up the WMD issue, because Bush was told there were no WMD in Iraq.

  16. Ryan, you don’t address my question in your response.

  17. travis

    Why has Romney supported the Iraq invasion at the beginning?

    confusing grammar aside, maybe you could tell us who had a better position on the iraq war in the beginning? and is that person a politician you currently support for president?

    everybody had iraq wrong, mainly because saddam preferred his chances with the UN over his chances with iran. as we now know, as a result of new information from FBI interrogations of saddam, he allowed the world to continue believing he had WMDs because he thought it kept the iranians in check.

    as i said here, quoting extensively:

    Resolution 1441, the last of 17 such broad directives to Iraq, was adopted by a 15-0 vote on Nov. 8, 2002. It said the Security Council:

    “… Decides that Iraq has been and remains in material breach of its obligations under relevant resolutions, including resolution 687 …” and gives Iraq a final 30 days to provide “a currently accurate, full, and complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and other delivery systems such as unmanned aerial vehicles and dispersal systems designed for use on aircraft, including any holdings and precise locations of such weapons, components, sub-components, stocks of agents, and related material and equipment, the locations and work of its research, development and production facilities, as well as all other chemical, biological, and nuclear programmes, including any which it claims are for purposes not related to weapon production or material. …”

    Iraq was to give inspectors “immediate, unimpeded, unconditional, and unrestricted access” to verify its compliance. The decree concluded with its admonition that the Security Council “has repeatedly warned Iraq that it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its obligations.”

    The resolution’s 30-day window dragged into months of stalling and limited compliance by Hussein. By early March 2003, the U.S., Britain and Spain were lobbying the Security Council to set a March 17 deadline for Iraq to comply with the Nov. 8, 2002, resolution.

    On March 7, 2003, the inspectors paradoxically suggested to the Security Council that Iraq had displayed more cooperation, but the inspectors also said they still had 29 areas of unanswered questions about weapons issues. The Tribune reported that those issues included the whereabouts of thousands of chemical bombs and tons of anthrax, VX nerve gas and botulinum toxin uncovered during previous searches.

    U.S. and British officials retorted that, at best, Iraq’s cooperation with the inspectors was reluctant, evasive, incomplete–and clearly a rebuke to Resolution 1441.

    France and Russia nevertheless threatened to veto the proposed ultimatum. In response, Washington, London and Madrid proposed setting a compliance deadline later than March 17. Again, Paris and Moscow threatened vetoes.

    With two permanent members of the Security Council unwilling to support the November resolution for which they had voted, the U.S., Britain and Spain withdrew their proposal for an 18th resolution. They said they instead would rely on the earlier council ultimatums. With diplomacy in tatters, the UN instructed its inspectors and humanitarian workers to leave Iraq.

    On March 17, 2003, Bush primarily cited Iraq’s failure to obey UN orders as the reason for the impending launch of the war. He spoke of Iraq’s weapons programs but pivoted his speech on Hussein’s intransigence:

    “My fellow citizens, events in Iraq have now reached the final days of decision. For more than a decade, the United States and other nations have pursued patient and honorable efforts to disarm the Iraqi regime without war. That regime pledged to reveal and destroy all its weapons of mass destruction as a condition for ending the Persian Gulf War in 1991.

    “Since then, the world has engaged in 12 years of diplomacy. We have passed more than a dozen resolutions in the United Nations Security Council. We have sent hundreds of weapons inspectors to oversee the disarmament of Iraq. Our good faith has not been returned. …

    “The United Nations Security Council has not lived up to its responsibilities, so we will rise to ours,” Bush said.

    “In recent days, some governments in the Middle East have been doing their part. They have delivered public and private messages urging the dictator to leave Iraq, so that disarmament can proceed peacefully. He has thus far refused. All the decades of deceit and cruelty have now reached an end. Saddam Hussein and his sons must leave Iraq within 48 hours.

    “Their refusal to do so will result in military conflict, commenced at a time of our choosing. For their own safety, all foreign nationals–including journalists and inspectors–should leave Iraq immediately.”

    Early on March 20 in Iraq–the night of March 19 here–the first missiles struck Baghdad.

    What we know today

    Reasonable minds profoundly disagree on whether Saddam Hussein’s flouting of UN resolutions and sanctions justified the launch of war. But there can be no credible assertion that either Iraq or the UN met its responsibility to the world. If anything, the Bush administration’s citations of cunning chicanery–both in Baghdad and at UN headquarters on the East River–were gravely understated.

    That chicanery is, however, not the only reason why Hussein felt he could dodge international mandates, or why the UN repeatedly permitted him to do so.

    The Bush administration’s strategy of confrontation bucked decades of policy in many countries–the U.S. included. Before Bush initiated what he called a war against global terrorism, many prosperous nations employed a triad defense of stoicism, appeasement and, from Washington and a few other world capitals, occasional bursts of retaliatory missiles or other limited military actions.

    That is not to diminish efforts such as Western Europe’s struggle to control leftist terror groups in the second half of the 20th Century, or Israel’s attempts to thwart Palestinian bombers, or diplomacy to quell bloody violence in Northern Ireland. But those and other experiences with terror assaults had left many governments weary and resigned.

    The notion of attacking Iraq thus came as an especially sharp stick in the eye of nations that, unlike Washington, didn’t see that country as a cradle of terrorism. Yes, Hussein was a pariah, but he had not invaded another country in a dozen years, and many governments wanted proof that he had meaningful ties to groups such as Al Qaeda.

    Bush, having overthrown the Taliban government of Afghanistan, now wanted to eradicate another regime. And he wanted the UN to give him permission.

    The better approach, many governments believed, was containment. They saw Hussein’s grudging agreement to re-admit weapons inspectors, as Resolution 1441 demanded, as proof that the world could limit whatever threat he posed. But was Hussein a reformed man? Or did having the world’s most powerful military poised at his border, ready to invade, prompt him to pay lip service to UN demands?

    As 2003 arrived, the containment caucus had a problem. For years many governments had hoped that a combination of sticks and carrots–in the form of international oversight, threatened sanctions and economic incentives–would keep North Korea from pursuing nukes. The disclosure that Pyongyang had secretly connived for years to build nukes, and now was lengthening the reach of its delivery system, was a nightmare. Its implication: If containment someday failed and Hussein acquired nukes, he would be as invulnerable as the North Koreans who, by numerous accounts, already possessed bombs.

    The reluctance of many governments to embrace Bush’s aggressive agenda was understandable. But the reluctance of those governments to enforce Security Council resolutions for which they had voted arguably was not.

    Did the White House mislead Americans, or the world, about Iraq’s rebuffs to the UN? No. The truthfulness of the administration’s basic case, like Iraq’s hubris, is as self-evident in retrospect as it was at the time:

    For whatever reason, and none is acceptable, Hussein didn’t disclose what weapons programs he had, or no longer had, or schemed to have. He did not have the option–refusal–that he chose.

    Rather than confront that refusal, the UN averted its eyes–not only from Hussein but from its own complicity in his bad acts. Even as Hussein ignored the resolutions, widespread corruption of an important UN effort to help the people of Iraq empowered him to continue abusing them. That corruption allegedly funded Hussein’s purchase of influential friends in nations that, year after year, did not press the Security Council to enforce its edicts against him.

    As long as Hussein laid golden eggs, many powerful individuals and businesses around the world were happy to collect them–and to support his efforts to end the international sanctions against Iraq.

    These patterns of failure emerge from the findings of an inquiry panel led by Paul Volcker, former chairman of this nation’s Federal Reserve, and from the October 2004 report of U.S. chief weapons inspector Charles Duelfer. Numerous U.S. congressional investigators and criminal prosecutors also are turning up evidence.

    In a series of reports, Volcker’s team has chronicled the debasement and exploitation of the UN’s oil-for-food program. For seven years before the war, that program let Hussein sell oil and ostensibly use the proceeds to buy humanitarian supplies for citizens suffering hardships caused by the sanctions.

    Under lax UN oversight, Hussein used oil-for-food to wage extortion, bribery and other schemes: Volcker alleges that half of some 4,500 companies around the world that participated in oil-for-food paid $1.8 billion in illegal kickbacks to Iraq’s regime. And, apart from oil-for-food, Hussein also scammed vast revenues by illegally smuggling oil out of Iraq.

    Hussein did use some of the money to help his people. He also diverted booty, Volcker found, to beneficiaries in 66 countries. Significantly, many of these diplomats and other profiteers were clustered in France, Russia and China–three nations with permanent memberships, and veto power, on the Security Council.

    Tariq Aziz, then Iraq’s deputy prime minister, has told probers that Hussein awarded oil allocations to his beneficiaries based on their level of opposition to the sanctions. An Oct. 28, 2005, Washington Post account of Volcker’s fifth and final report summed up the findings: Iraq used its oil wealth to influence some countries’ policies at the UN, awarding Russia $19 billion and France $4.4 billion in oil contracts.

    Charles Duelfer’s October 2004 report on his search for Iraqi weapons succinctly framed Hussein’s modus operandi. Duelfer also said Hussein’s scheme to parlay oil-for-food into the end of UN sanctions almost had succeeded.

    Duelfer wrote: “He sought to balance the need to cooperate with UN inspections–to gain support for lifting sanctions–with his intention to preserve Iraq’s intellectual capital for WMD and with a minimum of foreign intrusiveness and loss of face. … By 2000-2001, Saddam had managed to mitigate many of the effects of sanctions and undermine their international support. Iraq was within striking distance of a de facto end to the sanctions regime …” Once liberated from sanctions, Duelfer concluded, Hussein intended to recreate Iraq’s illicit weapons capability.

    that is from to view the list of those who supported the invasion of iraq or otherwise believed (as the bush administration did) that saddam had WMDs, view this post. the list includes hillary clinton, BJ clinton, and john mccain.

    so, raphael, please quickly try to make a useful point or something.

  18. Yes there are still two candidates who opposed the war at the beginning: Ron Paul and Barack Obama.

    “Hussein didn’t disclose what weapons programs he had, or no longer had, or schemed to have. He did not have the option–refusal–that he chose.” … is wrong.

    “Although the inspection organization was now operating at full strength and Iraq seemed as determined to give it prompt access everywhere, the United States appeared determined to replace our inspection force with an invasion army.” (“Disarming Iraq” by Hans Blix executive director of the UN weapon inspections program)

    That was before Bush announced his “Shock and Awe” campaign, which forced the UN inspectors out of Iraq.
    Take a look:

    Duelfers conclusion, that Saddam Hussein intended to recreate Iraq’s illicit weapons capability once liberated from sanctions, is nothing but speculation. Besides, why should Saddam be prohibited from arming Iraq to protect his country, when his neighbor has WMDs? Why doesn’t the US destroy its WMDs?

    Bush’s foreign policy is so hypocritical. Imagine Ahmadinedschad would act by his rules. He’d have to bomb the US immediately, because his country is facing imminent threat from the US, which according to Bush demands a preventive strike.

  19. travis

    so you support barack and ron? do you oppose mccain, hillary, and huckabee because of their positions on this single issue?

    conservatives oppose nation building. i am conservative and i do, just like ron paul. i would prefer our nation to have a ron paul foreign policy.

    but i’m not going to blame the people who fell for saddams’ ruse.

    just like huckabee’s pie-in-the-sky tax idea, ron paul’s awesome (but unpopular) policies do not have a chance of happening, even if he is elected.

    Why doesn’t the US destroy its WMDs?

    we are destroying them.

    ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, Md. (Army News Service, Jan. 9, 2008) – As of Dec. 10, the Army has safely destroyed 50 percent of the United States’ chemical-agent stockpile since beginning to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention April 29, 1997.

  20. Yes I do oppose those other candidates over this single issue, because it is the only issue that decides on the lives of possibly thousands of man, woman and children.

    People fell for Bush’s ruse much more than they fell for Saddams’.

    I am glad to hear, that there is some disarmament going on. Now imagine how much easier it would be to convince other nations to conform to NPT, if there were an effort to end nuclear weaponry globally.

  21. travis

    People fell for Bush’s ruse much more than they fell for Saddams’.

    please explain what you mean by that, and also whether or not that point is relevant to the discussion we’re having here.

    btw, do you also believe it was bush (or the jews) brought down the twin towers on 9/11?

    thanks in advance!

  22. Raphael,

    My opinion of world affairs is such that unless you maintain a strong amount of advanced weaponry, you will eventually be mercilessly overrun.

    I understand where you’re going with your arguments. I agree, it would be great if no one had any nuclear or biological weapons. However, evil is a part of this world just like the good is. It lurks in the hearts of some men everywhere and rears its ugly head when it sees an opportunity to conquer and control more. It has existed throughout the entirety of recorded history and will continue to manifest itself in future generations. I wish we were on the threshold of world peace, but I’m afraid that the prudent thing to do is to remain armed and vigilant, acting responsibly with whatever power we have.

    These comments do not apply to any specific events…

  23. travis, no I don’t think, that Bush brought down the twin towers, neither did Saddam Hussein.

    Bush’s ruse was to convince the US public of an imminent threat of WMDs in Iraq. He had no evidence for WMDs, that’s why he created evidence (remember the Nigerian tubes story?).

    “fixing intelligence and facts around the policy” was Bush’s ruse^H^H^H^Hcrime

  24. travis

    Bush’s ruse was to convince the US public of an imminent threat of WMDs in Iraq.

    and, as i mentioned above, saddam’s ruse was to convince the world iraq had WMDs. try as the world did (see my comment above) saddam continued to allow us to believe this.

    as i’ve said in the past, the one argument that i found very convincing in bush’s case for war was this: the entire world–except hussein himself, thought iraq had WMDs. hussein suddenly wouldn’t let the UN conduct inspections so lots of people, understandably, started freaking out. when the UN, because of corruption failed to act, the US acted. this makes sense because the US was most likely to suffer from a failure of the international community to deal with the perceived problem.

    do you think bush wanted to invade a sovereign nation only to discover he made the biggest goof of the new 21st century, dooming himself to being hated by 2/3 of his countrymen? probably not. bush messed up. but the ball was in saddam’s court and he chose to do nothing. i don’t blame bush for that one.

  25. Raphael

    “the entire world–except hussein himself, thought iraq had WMDs.” … wrong again.

    The US public believed that, because the media was beating the drum for war without covering any dissenting voices. I happened to be in Europe at that time and I remember, that European newspapers were far more skeptical.

    travis, you don’t seem to understand, that the UN weapon inspectors have been working successfully before Bush ordered them out. The US could have never suffered from a failure of the international community, because they successfully disarmed Iraq.

    I can only speculate why Bush was so eager to overthrow Saddam. He probably wanted to “end a job” his father started.

  26. travis

    the media was beating the drum for war without covering any dissenting voices.

    so now it is the media’s fault?

    i’m becoming confused! whom should i hate, april?

  27. Well, there are many to blame. There is no single culprit.

    The ambition to see the whole picture is IMHO more important, than the wish to hate a single culprit.

  28. […] Huckabee has finally left the race, but not without a final drop of hypocrisy. Huckabee said he was proud that he and McCain ran a civil campaign. He told supporters in Columbia, S.C., the night he lost there, “Even though I’d like the outcome to be just a little different, I had rather be where I am, and have done it with honor, than to have won with the dishonor of getting there by attacking somebody else.” […]