July 20, 2004
Cleland repeats the "Big Lie"
Posted by McQ
The more I read about Max Cleland, the more I'm of the opinion that he's become slightly deranged since the loss of his senate seat. How else to you explain the following?
In a conference call with reporters, Cleland said the president went to war in Iraq “because he concluded that his daddy was a failed president” for not having removed Saddam Hussein from power after the first Gulf War. Therefore, Cleland explained, the younger Bush decided to “be Mr. Macho Man” by removing Saddam himself.
Cleland also said the president “flat-out lied” when he asked Congress to authorize war in Iraq. “He told us four things,” Cleland said, listing Bush’s claims of Iraq weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons programs, attempts to acquire yellowcake uranium in Africa, and ties to al Qaeda. “All of that was a pack of lies,” Cleland said. Both Cleland and Kerry voted to authorize the war.
So, his argument is Bush went to war to avenge "daddy"?
And according to Cleland, the rest was simply "a pack of lies" used to justify W's war of revenge.
After reading his comments (or perhaps now, false charges is a better description) I have to wonder if Max has been held incommunicado for the last couple of weeks and fed nothing but obsolete Democrat talking points before he was "unleashed" on reporters.
As Jon so aptly pointed out about the "Bush Lied" crowd, they have no intention of conceding the field. Apparently their plan is to ignore emerging contrary facts and continue repeat their lies (and that's what these now become since we have information which directly refutes their charges) in the hope that a significant enough portion of the voting population who haven't been paying attention, or are predisposed to agree, will buy into them.
Anyone who's been paying attention knows of the reports which now refute the "Bush lied" charge concerning the uranium in Africa and WMDs. They're not even really debatable points anymore. Yet Cleland, in the face of this evidence, continues to push this lie. And obviously, if as it now seems clear, Iraq was attempting to acquire yellowcake from Niger, it should be just as clear that was aimed at a "nuclear program" in Iraq. Lastly, while there's been no hard evidence of a working relationship between al Qaeda and Iraq, there has been plenty of evidence of a "connection", however loose. And that speaks to "ties" of some sort.
Cleland's false charges strike me as those of a bitter political operative suseptable to being manipulated by a ruthless campaign which feeds and uses his bitterness in order to continue pushing the "big lie". Its a pity. Max Cleland was once a man I admired and respected. Perhaps it now become clearer to some why the voters of Georgia refused to reward Max with a second term.
UPDATE: Debra Saunders takes a whack at the "Bush Lied" crowd in the guise of Kerry:
Yet the senator said in a primary election debate, "I don't regret my vote. I regret we had a president who misled the nation and broke every promise he made to the Congress of the United States."
"Broke every promise" apparently is long-hand for "Bush lied."
Bush lied. Those two words have become such a mantra that it is hard to know how to begin addressing them. There's the awful knowledge, which makes me want to vomit, that U.S. intelligence was severely flawed -- and those flaws fueled a war. It was Hussein's flouting of the U.N. cease-fire agreement that made the war not only possible, but justifiable. Still, war was more avoidable than America knew.
"I think every premonition I had about the downside of this war was proved prescient," Kerry also told The Chronicle, "and it comes out of the experience that I personally had when we lost the consent and legitimacy of our nation in the war that I fought in."
And yet Kerry voted for this war. How can a man so savvy and sophisticated -- so prescient, if he does say so himself -- have been misled by that simpleton Bush?
"Proved prescient," yet "misled."
Now that is nuance.
Heh ... old, dumb "W".