March 17, 2006


GOP Irritation At Bush Was Long Brewing (Jim VandeHei, 3/17/06, Washington Post)

What Bush is facing now, beyond just election-year jitters by legislators eyeing his depressed approval ratings, is a rebellion that has been brewing since the days when he looked invincible, say many lawmakers and strategists. Newly unleashed grievances could signal even bigger problems for Bush's last two years in office, as he would be forced to abandon a governing strategy that until recently counted on solid support from congressional Republicans.

The White House at times has been "non-responsive and arrogant," said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.). "There are a thousand small cuts," he added, that are ignored when things are going well but "rear their heads when things are not going well."

"Members felt they were willing to take a lot of tough votes and did not get much in return," said Rep. Peter T. King (R-N.Y.), an early critic of the port deal.

Congressional scholar Norman J. Ornstein has written that the recently vented anger, after being suppressed for years out of loyalty or fear, might be seen in psychological terms. He called the condition "battered-Congress syndrome."

This would include the 232 Republican House members that George W. bush helped elect? The most since 1946? the first time since 1928 they increased a GOP majority in an election year? with 2004 being the first time the GOP ever increased a House majority in consecutive election cycles? Yeah, what did they get in return for following the President?

U.S. hovers close to its debt ceiling (Tom Abate, January 8, 2006, SF Chronicle)

The federal debt is so mind-boggling it's no wonder lawmakers would rather not think about it. In per capita terms, the current debt is about $27,000 for each of 298 million Americans.

But economists tend to look at the national debt as a percentage of the gross domestic product -- the sum total of all goods and services. This links the debt level to the nation's ability to pay and factors out inflation over time.

By this measure, the national debt has ebbed and flowed with world and political currents. According to historical tables in the 2006 federal budget, debt peaked at 121.7 percent of GDP in 1946 because of World War II spending. It fell to about 33 percent of GDP in 1980, then roughly doubled to the 60 percent range during the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush.

After hitting 67.3 percent of GDP in 1996, a few rare budget surpluses during the Clinton era drove the national debt back down to about 57 percent in 2001.

Debt as a percentage of GDP turned up again as the Bush administration began running deficits and now stands at an estimated 65.7 percent of GDP. The 2006 budget forecast predicts that the national debt will be 70 percent of GDP in 2010.

Posted by Orrin Judd at March 17, 2006 8:28 AM

It's like they take pleasure in lowering Bush's poll numbers yet he's not on a ballot this Fall and they are. I think they'll lose both houses thanks to the arrogance of congress not the president.

Posted by: JAB at March 17, 2006 8:37 AM


How does a party lose seats given such a robust economy? This sets up as Clinton '98.

Posted by: oj at March 17, 2006 8:42 AM

Saw noted elsewhere that there is a constant group of GOP Congresscritters ready to criticize Bush no matter the climate and that most of them (Graham, King, Lott) are the sources for this article.

JAB has a point - it appears that GOP Congress people think going after Bush will help them in November when it is actually hurting them. The Ports deal is a prime example - had they expressed concern but supported Bush (instead of going hysterical) they would both be looking better today.

Posted by: AWW at March 17, 2006 9:07 AM

OJ -

This is the worst economy for working families since.....2004! Haven't you been reading the news or watching TV?

Inflation is raging, the housing bubble is bursting, and people can't find good jobs.

Nancy Pelosi (or Hillary) is an economic goddess, and if only she had POWER, she could fix these things.


Posted by: ratbert at March 17, 2006 9:08 AM

Once again proving the old adage that man is the only animal that will bite the hand that feeds.

Posted by: Rick T. at March 17, 2006 9:10 AM

Remember that King and Graham are part of the Charles Schumer school of media lust, but where Chuckie can stay true to his roots and still get plenty of TV face time, King and Graham have to attack Bush if they want the TV bookers to keep them on the A lists in their Rolodexes (their love of McCain began for the same reason, but since the Senator is serious about a presidential run, his recent media appearances haven't been producing the sound bites the press is really hoping to get).

Posted by: John at March 17, 2006 9:42 AM

Hearing these critters makes you wonder about their intelligence. I can't see the logic in Republicans attacking Bush. Simple logic dictates that, if voters are looking for anti-Bush candidates in '06 and '08, they'll elect Democrats, not Bush-attacking Republicans.

Please, somebody tell if I am missing something here.

Posted by: sam at March 17, 2006 9:49 AM

You seem to expect decency from a pack of proven thieves and hypocrites and you are amazed that they lie as well. Since you are slowly waking up here is another little fact...they care more about money than about protecting you...look at all the rejections of port security measures the democrats propose...and they are too cowardly to present their own ideas. How do they think Iran would get a nuke into the country...they don't have long range bombers or ICBM's

Posted by: madmatt at March 17, 2006 10:00 AM

I think these folks are politically stupid enough to blow their advantages from tax cuts that led to a good economy. The ports freakout was a great example. The WH is bad at communications but at least realizes the media environment and its implications as an obstacle. The congress 'critters' are creature of that environment. The media has worked OT to drive down W's numbers as though it's 2004 and he's done too little to respond.

Now the Hill republicans, who always resented him, are afraid of the TV ads morphing them into Bush. Why they resent being morphed into a respected leader who won 2 national elections is puzzling to me, but they do.

Posted by: JAB at March 17, 2006 10:59 AM


Exactly. We're not ever going to spend the money it would require to make ports safe, so why not just have the best possible folks running them--that's Dubai.

Posted by: oj at March 17, 2006 11:12 AM

As it becomes ever more obvious what many of us knew in 1999, that Bush is a lazy, incompetent, corrupt, lying, hypocrite, the whining from the kool-aid drinkers is predictable.

Posted by: tommo at March 17, 2006 11:20 AM

It's clear that many Republican congress critters both in the house and in the senate were very happy in the minority under Robert Dole's or Robert Michel's genteel leadership -- going along to get along, and getting re-elected term after term.

They really believe that the being in the minority is the default setting and being in the majority is bothersome. They have no real interest in matters of state other than how it affects their careers, so they react to Bush's low poll numbers by reverting to type and going along with the Democrats rather than supporting him.

As sam correctly points out, this makes no sense because people who don't support the president will vote for Democrats, not disloyal Republicans. Too bad the GOP leadership is so weak and ineffective that it can't seem to get this simple message across.

Posted by: erp at March 17, 2006 11:32 AM

Graham doesn't think he got anything in return for pushing W's agenda?

What did his earmarks total?


Unless port security is in private hands, I'd reject dem proposals, too.

TSA has shown the way.

Posted by: Sandy P. at March 17, 2006 11:55 AM


Isn't the problem that they haven't drunk the kool-aid even as he's given them victory after victory?

Posted by: oj at March 17, 2006 11:58 AM


I am not expecting decency from these morons, i just expect them to understand which side their bread is buttered.

Posted by: sam at March 17, 2006 12:13 PM


If what you say is true, then why does the Left scream so loud? Shouldn't they be smiling at their good fortune?

Posted by: jim hamlen at March 17, 2006 12:47 PM

tommo, you spelled "clinton" wrong.

Posted by: toe at March 17, 2006 1:35 PM

"battered-Congress syndrome.": bs

Posted by: ic at March 17, 2006 2:42 PM

I'm guessing tommo forgot to signal s/on - s/off.

Posted by: erp at March 17, 2006 3:21 PM

It is just amazing to me that there are still 36 to 38% of people still willing to support Bush. It stands to reason that it is the Republican base that still support him, and I admire their loyalty, however what is Bush's conservative record to diserve this loyalty?.

For starters he is presiding over the biggest budget deficits in the history of our country (And the world for that matter). Remember the tax and spend Democrats critics ? Where is the Charge and spend critics from the Republican side to this administration? Why the silence? why the support? . Is Bush any better than the so called fiscally irresponsible Democrats?. Is it not one of the main reasons why Republicans despise Democrats?

The war in Iraq that started over an imminent treat from WMD's morphed into country engineering (Without the engineers) when no WMD's were found. Now Bush and every Republican sound like your next door bleeding hard liberal with statements like " We are in Iraq to promote freedom and Democracy in the Middle East" . Or "We are liberating a country and giving Iraq an opportunity to get a Democracy" . If i didn't know better I could suare I was looking at a Ted Kennedy policy for Chad, or some other African Country. What ever happened to those righteous Republicans enraged at Clinton intervention in Bosnia for exactly the same reason? Was not Clinton trying to help stop genocide?, helping the Moslems in Bosnia? Going after an evil dictator? Creating a Democracy in Croatia? . Then it was "Wag the Dog", and "Country Building" from Republicans. Today is "Protect our liberty", and "Freedom and Democracy for iraq". What semantics can do!!!.... and HIPOCRECY. I will tell you what is the diference between the Balkans and Iraq. Clinton had a plan and it worked. Bush has only the faith thing and is running out of faithful.

What happened to Bush's promises of tax cuts to the middle class?. Any one filling any richer?. Every time I go put gasoline I am reminded how much I have to tank Bush for my new found wealth (There goes my tax cut, if I got one at all). Now if you are a Country Club member then congratulations!!.You are coming out as a bandit, and Gas prices is the least of your concerns.... Let the good times roll and long live Bush!!!. May Republican white middle class America keep on worring about terrorist, evil dictators ploting to kill us all, abortion liberals, gays, The French etc, etc. This is not going to pay the bills, support your retirement, help if you get sick, or keep the job you are about to loose to a Chinese but let's not worry about the small stuff. We most stop Gays because they are taking over the planet!!!.

Today it is a fact. Bush internationally stands as the most despised, and ridiculed American president in history. And here at home he is down to his "Base", which is Code for " Republican hacks that will support a Chimp if the primate has an R next to his name".
This so called "base" is as worthless intellectually as the liberal "base" that supports any Democrat liberal or not. I don't consider these "base" people Americans, I consider them partisans, and they add nothing to discurse.

Posted by: gil villagran at March 17, 2006 10:29 PM

Mr. Villagran:

In fact,m the deficit isn't historically large and is downright skimpy given that we're at war.

W does indeed spend less on government than recent predecessors.

The Iraq war had nothing to do with WMD, that was just an excuse that Blair and Powell asked to use to try and get Labour and the UN to support the war.

The American economy has rarely been healthier, especially surprising given the war and artificially high interest rates.

For Americans, who consider the country a City on a Hill, it's a badge of honor to be hated by secular Europe. Any president who's well regarded by such people is worrisome.

Your last bit nails it though. The base is anti-intellectual, a defining trait of the American character.

Posted by: oj at March 17, 2006 10:39 PM

As sam correctly points out, this makes no sense because people who don't support the president will vote for Democrats...

So what does it mean to "support the president"?

Does it mean you close your eyes and make believe that Bush has been good for America? How exactly do you do that?

Do you have to say things like, "We have a great economy! Jobs are picking up! We're winning in Iraq!"

Do you pretend that our bill of rights isn't being used for toilet paper by Gonzales and Yoo? Do you watch industry and developers rip into our national parks and clap while they do it? Or do you just fill up your SUV at $2.55 a gallon and convince yourself that the oil companies need those profits for more exploration?

Must be a real trick. I hate George Bush because I love America.

Posted by: at March 18, 2006 7:50 AM


Yes, you simply recite the extraordinary economic numbers he's produced, the major reforrms-- school vouchers, HSAs, the FBI--and the list of countries liberated or liberalized: Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, Sudan, Liberia, Haiti...

Hating George Bush is easy--hating what he's done as president is unAmerican.

Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 8:21 AM

gil & anon

No need for pretense or vitriol. Support the president means exactly that. Like what his opponents say better? Vote for them. It's very simple. That's how our system works.

Posted by: erp at March 18, 2006 8:43 AM

Well, they are moonbats, but you've got to agree that they're right about the cost of gas. "Cheap gas for everyone" is a winning Democratic slogan.

Posted by: David Cohen at March 18, 2006 9:29 AM

No wonder they think it was a war for oil.

Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 9:38 AM

i bet the democrats and their cretinous followers would support a war for salad dressing.

Posted by: toe at March 18, 2006 1:11 PM

"Extraordinary economic numbers". Yes indeed again RECORD DEFICITS is an extrordinary economic number. RECORD TRADE DEFICIT is an extraordinary economic number. A trillion dollars to be spent by the time we decide we had enough in Iraq is an EXTRAORDINARY NUMBER.

School Vouchers. Any one taking "advantage" of them?

The liberated countries:

1) Afghanistan. Last I check every American (All Democrats) were for going after Al-Quaida an Osama in this Country. The Democracy that came after is a great thing if you don't count the narco- warloards in the country side running their regions at will

2) Iraq. I say first you need to see if there will ever be a Democracy, and then you can procalim it let's not get cought in another "Mission accomplished" moment. If there ever is a Democracy it will cost us a trillion dollar and thousands of dead and wounded to install a Shitte run government that will have more ties to Iran than to us. Now this is what I call a plan!!!

3) Palestine. Palestine has been a mess for the las 50 years. I sincerelly don't know why you consider them liberated. They just elected Hamas to run their country. They do have a Democracy tough. Only problem is that now terrorist are officially in charge. Be careful what you wish you just may get it any one?. The Bush administration that promoted a democracy there, is now scrambling to undermine the democracy they help crate.

4) Lebanon. Same story. For a moment it looked like Lebanon was going to be a democracy until terrorist from Islamic Jihad and other organisations took control in democratic elections. They are liberated from the Syrians only to work with the Syrians to plot against the U.S.A. and Israel. So much for the liberated thing.

5) Libya. My favorite. You have a looser Kadafi put in his place (A rat hole) a long time ago by Regan "giving up" his phantom nuclear arsenal in exchange for acceptance by the west. If you consider this liberating Libya then fine. I consider this a dictator doing what they do best.... survive to continue to exploit their people.

6) Sudan. There is a genocide going on there, and I don't know who do you think is liberated.

7) Haiti. Bush does not even know where Haiti is.

As for the comment that it is un American to go against Bush. Then I am a proudly Un- American man. I am so Un- American that I believe that if you are going to start wars we all shoud be willing to fight them.

Is funny how I never see these super patriots call for a draft. Republicans should be burning the lines to their Washington representatives demanding the return of the draf. Show your patriotism where it counts people !!!.... Let the flag waiving to the cut and run Democrats. I for one will be happy to sheer you on to victory in Iraq,Iran, Syria, North Korea (While we work a little more on this pre-emptive Bush policy looking for more wars)..... So many bad guys so little time.

The coments that the Democrats don't have anithing better. Maibe not, but if you remember that in our intervention in Bosnia we did not loose a single life, and accomplished the mission. The conclusion has to be one of COMPETENCE. My friend this is not a contest as to who is worst. No party has the answers. It is up to us the voters to demand from our representatives that they do more than make deals with lobbist and start representing us. I hate to barake it to you but neither republicans nore Democrats give a damn about us. It is their careers, and retirement they care, and on this all of us are outside looking in.


Posted by: gil villagran at March 18, 2006 2:49 PM

The deficits are quite minor in historic terms, as is a war that coists less than a twelfth of one year's GDP.

Yes, but mostly black kids, so it's not news.

You may not value their freedom, but they do.

I agree there should be a draft--mandatory national service is good policy not least because it would allow us an opportunity to counteract the pablum kids learn in schools these days and get them to shape up physically.

Posted by: oj at March 18, 2006 2:55 PM

gil: it's not as much fun avoiding a pretend draft, is it ?

Posted by: tow at March 18, 2006 4:47 PM

gil has been unmasked as a DNC operative. The one sentence in all his comments with no spelling errors, The conclusion has to be one of COMPETENCE. is the new party line. Fox News this evening had a funny riff with various party leader using it.

Posted by: erp at March 18, 2006 7:27 PM

COMPETENCE or lack of planning, or extreme stupidity, or arrogance, or a combination of all. TAKE YOUR PICK.

Are these reasons spelled correctly and clear enough for you?.

Insted of commenting on my spelling maibe you actually want to have a debate about what is it about my comments you find in error. Any American soldier killed in Bosnia?, Is Croatia not a Democracy today, The Balkans are not in peace today?, Was Milosevich not arrested and brought to justice?, Did the Clinton administration not end the genocide and ethnic cleansing going on? Were the Republicans as a man not opposed to this campain? Did they not started a "Wag the Dog" conspiracy smear campaign, and accustaions of Country building? .

My friend INCOMPETENCE AND HYPOCRISY on the part of this administration sound about right to me.

Posted by: gil villagran at March 18, 2006 11:04 PM

Mr. villagran:

No, as a matter of fact the Republicans supported the intervention--Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, John McCain and George W. Bush all did. Of course, the GOP supports presidents during wartime reflexively, as Democrats oppose them.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 12:04 AM

The Balkans are at "peace" today if you spell peace I-s-l-a-m.

Posted by: erp at March 19, 2006 11:25 AM


Whos was tacking about Wag the Dog?. One can find exceptions to any remark, but please let's not pretend that Clinton had the support of the GOP in Bosnia.
By the way OJ, Clinton was impeached while we had troops in harm's way in the Balkans. So much for today's complain by your crowd of Democrats doing harm to our troop moral if they criticize Bush.


Can you spell IGNORANT?. What on earth does ISLAM has to do with Clinton correct use of force in Bosnia?. Inform yourself before you talk, and I use my speller before I write, fair?

Posted by: gil villagran at March 19, 2006 11:59 AM

Long ago I had a mathematics teacher who announced on the first day of class that he only provides answers to questions he never heard before, meaning that the answers to most questions were readily available and he wouldn't waste time repeating them.

If you want to know the truth about affairs in the former Yugoslavia, stop looking in the leftwing media and start checking out media where the truth may be found. Here's your first clue, Clinton had no interest in doing the right thing in the Balkans and his winking when Iranian terrorists smuggled arms to the indigenous Moslems allowing them to continue their killing of Christians and establishing a beachhead on the European mainland will be a cause of trouble for years to come.

Posted by: erp at March 19, 2006 1:16 PM

Mr. villagran:

The GOP controlled Congress when we were in Bosnia--it was a joint effort by them and a Democratic president. That's just how Republicans are.

Clinton was impeached for other matters, not the war.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 1:26 PM

Erp. first of all thank you for finally focusing about issues. I was beginning to think you were obsessed with spelling.
Yugoslavia under Joseph Tito was a nation artificially put together after WW I and hold together by a dictator (sounds familiar?). Upon Tito's dead the Serbs (Orthodox Christians) tried to stop the break up of Yugoslavia by attacking Croatia (Roman catholics of German decent). The Srbs then continued by attacking Bosnia-Herzegovnia composed by Slavs of the Sunni Muslim religion. Genocide and ethnic cleansing occurred in Croatia, and much worst in Bosnia-Herzegovnia BY THE SERBS(Orthodox Christians). I don't have a clue where do you get that Muslims were killing Christians in this war. Furthermore, If you are worried about the Muslims having a beach head in Europe thanks to Clinton..... The Bosnian Muslims have been following the Koran for hundreds of years. That is hardly Clintons fault.
As for Clinton's real intentions, I don't read minds and neither do you. I am just pointing out the results of a well planed well coordinated war.
OJ. Let me ask you again WHO WAS TALKING ABOUT WAG THE DOG?.
Let me add the following facts. Feel free to consult Google historical web site if you can;
1) W indeed to his credit did not openly criticized Clinton intervention in Bosnia. Bush however when campaigning agains Al Gore openly and frecuently criticize Nation Building and mentioned that he will never follow that road.
2)Newt consistently attacked Clinton on Bosnia.
3)Bush did get the support of the majority of Democrats in the resolution passed by Congress prior to starting the war in Iraq. It is in fact a point that the GOP constantly uses to discredit Democrats that attack Bush.
4) Bob Dole and Jhon McCain are decent politicians and at least are consistant.
It may come as a shock to yu OJ but I don't much care for either party. I care for results. I believe a politician should be given a chance, and then should be held accountable for his actions. If Republicans wanted Clinton impeached for "laying under oath" on a blow job fine that is accountability, but don't make a 180 and now everithing goes with Bush.
In my book if a president Democrat Republican or Libertarian calls for a war he/she better have a real reason or else he/she looses his job. Is that simple. I don't care if the Democrats voted for the war, or the Brits believed Sadam had WMD's... THEY DID NOT START THE WAR, BUSH DID.
For the record. I voted for RR twice, Clinton twice, and believe or not W once. As you can see I am one of those people that actually vote for the man look at his actions and results (Not the B.S.) and then decide if he is worth my vote.
I will quote you. "Support the president means exactly that. Like what his opponents say better? vote for them". I agree. Only thing is I look at waht the president DOES not what he SAY. OJ we should never let ourselves become rubber stamps for a politician.

Posted by: gil villagran at March 19, 2006 3:27 PM

Mr. villagran;

Wag the Dog was about George Bush I. It happened to come out in theaters as Clinton bombed OBL during his Monica problems. It had nothing to do with Bosnia, which the Republican Congress approved.

Yes, Democrats opposed the Iraq war as they always oppose the nation when they aren't in power.

It doesn't shock me at all--you sound like someone who puts self above all.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 4:33 PM

gil: we still have troops in the balkans 10 years on, after clinton announced they would only be there a year. the campaign there was a farce, as you would expect with a chronic self-abuser as commandeer in chief. but if that's what you want to call success, then by all means do so. by your measure, the u.n. is an admirable and successful organization. guffaw.

Posted by: tow at March 19, 2006 4:59 PM

We stopped the worst killing even if we intervened on the wrong side--that's no little success.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 5:03 PM


Check your facts.

"WAG THE DOG" is the mention of the GOP when they made the attempt to link a movie of the same name, with Clinton's political problems at the time. The theory was that Clinton was starting a war with Bosnia to distract the attention of the public from his political problems and calls for impeachment by the GOP. The theory was advanced by Republicans.

You continue to say that the Democrats did not support the war. This is NOT CORRECT. Again check the Resolution passed by Congress prior to the war giving authorization to Bush to go to the U.N with the strenght of the support of a united American people. The Democrats supported this resolution by a 2/3 majority, the Republicans unanimously.

The fact that people Republicans and Democrats alike are against the war now has to do with the lies, the deception, the exageration, the lost credibility, incompetence, etc. For my life I don't get why you can't understand that decent can be on the issues. In your eyes everithing has to be partisan.
I, and a lot of people do not appreciate a president spending a trillion dollars, and thousands of lifes to have at best a Democracy of Shiites that hate the hell out of us, and will turn to help Iran build nuclear weapons. It is simply IDIOTIC!!! I did not vote for him to do this.

I respectfully ask you to stop making up things. AGAIN, CHECK FACTS.

Posted by: gil villagran at March 19, 2006 5:11 PM

Funny you mention that we still have troops in Bosnia after Clinton announced that they would be there a year.... You then should be frantic with Bush that announced that our troops would be there for.... a year, then two, now, three, and into what 20 years?!!!, not to mention that we were going to pay for this war with Iraq oil revenues remember?
Bosnia was not a farce for the thousands of innocent Bosnian civilians that were helped from certain dead by an American intervention ordered by Clinton against the U.N. Security Council orders. You should feel proud that once we stood for freedom and it worked. Not a single American soldier life lost.... I know that it's hard to accept to a partisan but that's history now.
As for our precense in Bosnia. It is a NATO presence. We are supposed to follow treaties remember?
If you support Bush in Iraq because we went to take out a dictator that did the same as Milosevich why the doble standard?.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I hardly consider the U.N a successful organisation. I do consider the U.N. as a work in progress that needs a lot of work. For now it will have to do.

Posted by: gil villagran at March 19, 2006 5:41 PM

No, wag the Dog was written by a liberal to implicate Bush I. It was made into a movie by Hollywood liberals. It happened to coincide with the cruise attacks on Sudan and Afghanistan and Lewinsky, thus provoking the comparisons by the media and the GOP.

A majority of Democrats in Congress voted against the Iraq war resolution.

You hit the nail on the head though when you say you oppose democracy for Shi'ites.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 5:54 PM


The 1997 movie Wag the Dog by Barry Levinson from the book by Larry Beinhart had the following plot; Before elections a spin-doctor and a Hollywood producer joint forces to fabricate a war to cover up a presidential sex scandal.

The Gulf War started January 17 1991 @ 2:38 A.M. Bush Sr. gave the order.

Can you please explain to me how the Democrats were attacking Bush I with a movie that was to be released 6 years later, on a topic about a personal sex scandal that Bush I never had?

On the Democratic support for the war.

Please go to Your congress .com

2002 joint resolution (JOINT MEANS TOGETHER)by U.S. Congress

107th Congress
2nd. session
Oct10, 2002.
Sec1. Authorization for use of military force against Iraq
Sec. 2
Is a long Joint Resolution. Democrats VOTED IN THE MAJORITY FOR THIS RESOLUTION.

OJ AGAIN, you are not checking facts. Is not about winning an argument, is about making up your mind on correct information. You apparently are misinformed, and do not take the time to at least research what you say.

Posted by: gil villagran at March 19, 2006 6:41 PM

Mr. Villagran:

Yes, I wasn't suggesting Beinart had ESP--he was attacking GHWB but it backfired, as all comedy does on the Left.

A majority of the Democrats in Congress voted against that resolution. Something like 147 against and 108 for.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 6:58 PM


You lost me in you logic. Beinhart was attcking Bush about a sex scandal ? When did Bush Sr had a sex scandal?. How do you know Beinhart is a liberal?. it backfired in what way? Where does he mention Bush in his book?.

Do you understand that I am pointing out THE MOVIE in my comments? Again, the movie was released in 1997.

If Bush Sr started the war in 1991, where does the attack by the Democrats fits?.

You sincerely don't remember Wag the Dog The movie beeing used by Republicans to attack Clinton?. Wow!!!

Can you plese tell me where are you finding the numbers about the resolution. Maibe we are talking about two different things.

Are you aware that Republicans today consistently discredit Democrats by pointing out (correctly) that Democrats supported Bush in the war in Iraq? What do they mean by this?

A Democratic majority in the Senate supported the resolution by 77-23. Let me point out to you that at the time the Democrats held a plurality (Majority) in the Senate by 50 Democrats 49 Republicans, and 1 Democratic leaning Independent.

In the House the resolution passed with a 296-133 majority. Do the math.

If this is not Democratic support to you fine. Let's call it divided support.... but support never the less. This resolution would had gone to the trash can if the Democrats would have voted against it in either the House or the Senate. They had (and still have ) the numbers to stop a resolution such as this from passing.

Posted by: gil villagran at March 19, 2006 8:13 PM

I'm afraid you have yourself so at odds with the facts that I may not be able to untangle it all.

The book attacking Bush didn't feature a sex scandal--Hollywood added that and got unlucky when it implicated their boy Bill. As the story I linked to shows, the press raised the comparison after the cruise attack on OBL and the GOP did use it. Bosnia was a different war entirely.

As your own numbers demonstrate, about 147 Democrats in Congress voted against the war which is a majority of their number.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 8:24 PM


Sorry I have you so confused.

Now the Wag the Dog story was started by the press with no Republican participation I presume. Just when I though that the press was a bunch of liberals (according to Right Wingers)it turns out that they start the wag the dog campain against their beloved Clinton.... But I am at odd with facts.

I most point out to you that I was talking about the MOVIE not the book go back and look at my remarks.

Youu are right tough, and I stand corrected in that the Wag the Dog GOP campain started in Clinton's attack against Osama in Afghanistan. Can you believe that Republicans were angry that Clinton was trying to kill Osama back then?

Does the fact that it was Afghanistan and not Bosnia make any difference?

To quote you " GOP supports presidents during war time reflexively as Democrats oppose them" .

The Democratic majority in the Senate passed the resolution
The House of Represntatives passed a JOINT resolution
Wag the Dog is Republicans, not the press attacking a Democrat president. For as if one was to follow your logic it would be the liberal press attacking Bush today, and not the Democrats.
If the Wag the dog attack was in Afghanistan or Bosnia or Zimbawe.... who cares? I was just responding to your quote that Republicans do not attack Democrat presidents in a war and my friend respectfully, that is BS.

Finally I have left myself be dragged into a wag the dog thing that is becoming old. I perhaps selfishly was hoping to talk about why is it that Republicans support the Iraq war, but it did not happened. I was curios to hear what they have to say.

Have to go.

OJ was nice talking to you. You sound like a real decent man. I hope Bush is worthy in the end of your apparent uncoditional support.

Posted by: gil villagran at March 19, 2006 9:33 PM

Yes, so we're left with the GOP supporting the president when he committed troops but dubious about cruise missiling an aspiring factory in the middle of impeachment. It is certainly the case that Bill Clinton's behavior distracted from the hunt for OBL--perhaps the most damaging aspect of the whole affair.

And the majority of Democrats, on the other hand, opposed enforcing the UN resolutions and removing Saddam.

Posted by: oj at March 19, 2006 11:21 PM

Just go to google. Enter:

kosovo Clinton Wag the dog

There is an immense number of Republican attacks.

Posted by: mary at March 20, 2006 6:36 PM


That's after the OBL attacks established the meme,. not contemporaneous with Bosnia, which the GOP supported. It's also the far Right, not the Party.

Posted by: oj at March 20, 2006 6:56 PM