July 14, 2004
Poor Baghdad Jim
Seattle Congressman "Baghdad Jim" McDermott is "disappointed" he wasn't invited to the White House for a bill-signing ceremony.
President Bush signed into law yesterday an African trade agreement long championed by Seattle's lawmaker, U.S. Rep. Jim McDermott.
But McDermott was not invited to the White House signing ceremony, a disappointing cap to years of effort.
"It's too bad that kind of thing has to happen," said McDermott's spokesman, Mike DeCesare, who added that his boss was "disappointed."
It's time to play a tune on Taranto's tiny violin
. The White House probably wouldn't have snubbed McDermott if he didn't go around talking like a street-corner lunatic:
From Saddam Hussein's Baghdad, Sept. 29, 2002:
"I think the president would mislead the American people" [in order to bring about war with Iraq] July 1, 2003
The deputies of the Bush Terror Posse -- Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft -- are conducting a deliberate campaign to frighten us. July 3, 2004
There are already rumours circulating that Osama bin Laden is being held somewhere already and it's only that they are trying to decide what day they should bring him out
And if McDermott has a paranoid fear of the President, why should he be disappointed that he wasn't invited to the White House?
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 14, 2004 10:01 AM
McDermott was a first class jerk when I lived in Seattle in 1982 and he hasn't improved with age. Cheney's advice to Leahy should be forwarded to Baghdad Jim.
Does anyone really believe McDermott's support for this bill had anything to do with it's passage? Would it have languished in the Congress if McDermott withheld support or was indifferent to it's passage? This is the congressmen Seattle gets when it supports this clown's return to the Congress again and again. An ineffective symbolic and powerless clown, without the respect of his own party, able to do little more than posture and issue outragous statements. But I guess that's what his constituents want from their "Congressmen".
At least with this president you know where you stand, he's not one to slap you on the back and be nice when he doesn't like you. He's not a typical politician in that regard.
And don't forget that FRONT PAGE photo of him in the Seattle Times holding a sign: "BUSH LIED."
Jim McDermott is no more a street lunatic than you are. You're doing street lunatics everywhere a disservice with your comments.
Jim McDermott was right on Iraq, he's beloved by his party, he's a hero, and he's a patriot. Your choice of quotes only underscores that fact.
"I think the president would mislead the American people"
From the dictionary:
tr.v. mis··led, (-ld) mis·lead·ing, mis·leads
1. To lead in the wrong direction.
2. To lead into error of thought or action, especially by intentionally deceiving.
That definition accurately describes President Bush's assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and was a clear and present danger to the United States. Saddam Hussein had no links to Al Qaeda. Iraq DID have a long-range weapons distribution program: DHL, UPS, or FedEx. That's the only way a weapon from Iraq would reach the United States. But that pre-supposes there WERE weapons. A year of searching has gone by and they've yet to find a single damned weapon.
Or do we have a clear plan and direction in Iraq? I don't see an exit strategy, and the point of going there was to find and destroy the WMDs. Instead, we've seen our neighbors and their children get killed, and small communities lose their first responders to a country that was not a threat to the United States.
"The deputies of the Bush Terror Posse -- Donald Rumsfeld, Tom Ridge and John Ashcroft -- are conducting a deliberate campaign to frighten us."
Yet another truthful statement. Let's see: any time unfavorable news comes out about the presidency (corporate scandals, energy policy, foreign policy), the terror alert level goes up a notch. For no clear reason. Just be afraid - the sky is falling, after all - and stop being afraid when we tell you to stop being afraid. Do you recall pre-2000 terror alerts? Do you remember being afraid of terrorists four years ago, or eight years ago? How about model airplanes with bombs, poison pens, shoe bombs, and all the other things we're supposed to be vigilant against?
"There are already rumours circulating that Osama bin Laden is being held somewhere already and it's only that they are trying to decide what day they should bring him out."
Remember who showed up in an unlikely little "spider hole"? I suppose if Osama can run a worldwide terror organization from a cave, that Saddam can run a nation-wide insurgency from a hole in the ground. Yes, a hole in the ground with all the communications gear, weapons, toilet facilities, sleeping quarters, guards, and all the other things you'd get in a modern military facility. Except he had none of those things, let alone air conditioning or a fan, in a part of the desert where it gets above a hundred degrees in the shade, and we're supposed to believe that Saddam was running the show from a hole? I can't wait to see the cave they pull Osama out of.
Jim's telling us his opinion, and he's open about it. Best thing about him is that he'll say what's on his mind, even if it's not popular, which is a hell of a lot better than most spineless Democrats. I think that's the problem conservatives have with Jim: he just doesn't roll over and play dead, or pander to the dead center.
Kayne, all that crap you're peddling has been debunked again and again and again to the point where you appear to be delusional in parroting it. Get some fresh new bullshit, please. Otherwise you risk looking as dopey as Baghdad Jim.
I wonder if Kayne would say the best thing about Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Tom Tancredo is that they speak their minds, express their honest opinions, and don't pander to the center like the rest of the spineless Republicans.
Please explain to me in succinct, fact-based terms exactly WHO debunked the Iraq war. Just how how would one go about debunking the war - was it just a nasty ol' rumor? Or were the weapons of mass destruction the rumor? Perhaps you've forgotten - we went to war in Iraq to destroy the weapons of mass destruction.
No weapons of mass destruction showing up means that the primary objective of the mission has failed.
President Bush and co. then told us we're there to liberate Iraq. That's fine, except we went there and took heavy casualties, and "liberating the Iraqi people" wasn't what the United Nations and Congress sanctioned us to do. Sure, it's a nice afterthought. The war was about the weapons of mass destruction.
So instead of a long rebuttal, which you probably couldn't muster in a coherent fashion, just show me one single weapon of mass destruction that is present in Iraq. Just one and I'll drop the subject. Because without those WMDs showing up, President Bush led us into war on the pretense of destroying WMDs, he misled us into believing that Saddam Hussein had the capability of producing WMDs, and he recklessly put our military in harm's way.
So debunk away. If possible, please provide a link to the legitimate discovery of weapons of mass destruction. Even better - provide driving directions or GPS co-ordinates. Perhaps you know where they are, which would certainly land you a high-level position in either Bush's cabinet or alternatively at Camp X-Ray.
As the commander-in-chief would say, "Bring it on."
And with regard to the pantheon of neo-cons who've been speaking their minds: good. I might disagree with them passionately, but it's pretty easy to see where they stand on the issues. This is better than a lot of the centrists on both sides of the aisle.
Saddam failed to live up to the terms of the 1991 ceasefire and failed to abide by the terms of 17 UN resolutions. The response of the French and the Clintons to this situation was ... "Comply with these resolutions, or we will pass another resolution!" Bush's response was to take Saddam down. It is regrettable that Bush does not take the same hard stand with Iran's nuclear ambitions. Granted, Iran is under no UN obligation to disarm, but hey, there's oil in Iran. According to the left, oil is all Bush cares about, so what's holding him back? If the Iraq intelligence was phony (although the Senate Intelligence Report and the British Report both confirm that, yeah, Saddam really was trying to buy uranium in Niger and Joe Wilson is a complete liar) why can't his CIA cabal create damning evidence against Iran to justify a phony war there?
It's really a shame. There are so many real issues, so many real mistakes, and so many dumb policies to criticize Bush about, but all this conspiracy-theory clutter only serves to discredit the legitimate Bush criticism.
From the Butler Report
"We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the government's dossier, and by extension the prime minister in the House of Commons, were well founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's state of the union address of 2003 that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well founded.
Even now it would be premature to reach conclusions about Iraq's prohibited weapons. Much potential evidence may have been destroyed in the looting and disorder that followed the cessation of hostilities. Other material may be hidden in the sand, including stocks of agent or weapons. We believe that it would be a rash person who asserted at this stage that evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of biological or chemical agents, or even of banned missiles, does not exist or will never be found. But as a result of our review, and taking into account the evidence which has been found by the ISG and debriefing of Iraqi personnel, we have reached the conclusion that prior to the war the Iraqi regime:
a) Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when UN inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.
b) In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities, to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities.
c) Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations security council resolutions, but did not have significant - if any - stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them."
How can anybody seriously take the position that Saddam wouldn't be a continuing threat and would pocess WMD's if not removed?
He had active programs. No stockpiles? Maybe, maybe not. But how long after the inspection regime ended before those stockpiles would appear? One week, one month, one year?
He failed to comply with the Gulf War ceasefire, failed to comply with how many UN resolutions.
Should we have waited to remove Saddam when he was stronger? Taking even more risks with our military. Whose is the more risky strategy?
Kayne, read the Butler Report. Read the report of the 9/11 Commission (not the cherry picked headlines which are diametrically opposed to the actual conclusions). Read the statements from not only French, British, German and UN sources concluding that Saddam had a WMD program. Read the statements from Clinton (both of them), Gore, Kerry, and Edwards concerning terorist links to Iraq, WMDs, et. al.
Then quit putting words in Bush's mouth that he never said. Finally, lay off the same ol', same ol' MoveOne and International ANSWER crap, engage your brain, and consider what your argument really is. If it is simply pique that a Republican is in the White Hosue and the nation is actually at war, then fine. Cry me a river. The go back to pretending the most important issue facing the nation is whether we have enough trial lawyers suing HMOs.
As a certified street lunatic, whipping off this message from the public library, I deeply resent being compared to Jim McDermott. Why, he wouldn't last a day on the street! I know of no street loonie who would carry water for a despot like Saddam. I'd pontificate more but I have to shuffle off to the needle exchange. If you don't get there early theuy run out.
Also, if you're going to make accusations in the way you did, back it up.
I defy you to go to the UN speech by the president in Sept of 2002. Get quotes from him, then tell us of anything he said that has been conclusively proven untrue.
I have an ulterior motive in asking you this.
New comments may be posted only from the 'Comments' links at the bottom
of each entry on the blog home page
Kayne, seriously man.. why are you wasting your time arguing with idiots? It's a waste of your energy.