Daily Kos diarist “mcjoan,” in a front-page post, says Joe Lieberman was lying when he said this past Sunday, “There were some things Vice President Cheney said about Saddam having nuclear weapons, I never bought that.”
In an attempt to prove that Lieberman was lying, mcjoan quotes three 2002 statements from Lieberman:
• “Every day Saddam remains in power with chemical weapons, biological weapons, and the development of nuclear weapons is a day of danger for the United States of America.”
• “We have reason to believe [Iraq] is developing nuclear weapons.”
• “What’s most frightening, said Lieberman, is that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons, and is rapidly developing nuclear capability.”
All of these quotes indicate that Lieberman “bought” the claims that Saddam was “developing” nuclear weapons — something which he is not denying. What he’s denying is that he “bought” the claims about Saddam “having” nuclear weapons.
Am I just grasping at rhetorical straws here, Clinton-style, splitting hairs over the what the definition of “is” is? Absolutely not. The difference between “developing” and “having” is crucial, and Lieberman knows it — and so should any Kos contributor worth his or her salt.
Lieberman is undoubtedly referring to Cheney’s March 16, 2003 appearance on Meet the Press, in which the vice president (in)famously said of Saddam: “we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.” In the invasion’s aftermath, that quote has been widely discussed and jumped on by the Left precisely because of the difference between “developing” and “having.” (For example, CreatePeace! describes Cheney’s “claim” as “Iraq has Nuclear Weapons for a fact.”) And yet now mcjoan is flatly ignoring that difference in a feeble attempt to prove that an honest man is dishonest.
It couldn’t be more obvious that when Lieberman says he never “bought” the “things Vice President Cheney said” about Saddam “having” nukes, the Meet the Press statement (and perhaps others like it, if they exist) is what he’s referring to — not the more commonplace claims that Saddam was “developing” nukes, which Lieberman (along with the Bush Administration, the vast majority of Congress, the world intelligence community at large, and our U.N. allies and adversaries alike) believed were true. As such, mcjoan’s supposedly contradictory quotes do not prove that “Joe told another whopper” or that his philosophy is “say whatever you have to say now, regardless of what you’ve said…in the past.” That’s just complete and utter b.s.
This prominent Kos contributor is lying, in an attempt to prove that Lieberman is lying. It’s shameful and it’s disgusting.
This is precisely the sort of tactic that makes me so incredibly hostile to the entire anti-Lieberman movement. As I’ve said repeatedly, if Connecticut voters feel so strongly about Lieberman’s stance on the war that they want to vote against him on that basis alone, I have no problem with that, even though I disagree. But instead of running an honest campaign on the issue(s), Lamont and his allies — and before anyone tries to distance Kos from Ned, let’s recall that they appeared in a campaign ad together — have consistently smeared Lieberman’s character and distorted his record, painting him as a liar, a power-hungry scoundrel, a friend of Bush, a DINO, a traitor to his party, a conservative in liberal’s clothing, and so forth, even though none of these things are factually correct. (And I’m talking before the primary, before Lieberman bolted the party, as well as after. These lies are a big part of the reason Lieberman lost the primary and thus wound up running as an independent in the first place.)
I realize that distortion and deception is par for the course in politics, but to see such tactics used by one Democrat (and his vast array of far-left allies) against another, more moderate Democrat is what made August’s primary defeat feel a bit like a purge. And yes, I know “purge” is an exaggeration, but my point is, when I saw that Democrats and liberals were willing to resort to such vile tactics against the alleged traitors in their midst — “traitors” like me, generally progressive individuals who believe in a muscular foreign policy and who put our conscience and our country ahead of any party line — that’s when I knew the party of LBJ and JFK no longer had room for BLL.
[NOTE: An earlier version of this post claimed it was “Kos himself” who lied about Lieberman. This is not correct, and I’ve now edited the post to reflect that “mcjoanâ€? is the blogger in question, not Kos. I apologize for the error. Nevertheless, this is a post on Kos’s front page, not some sort of obscure diary, so it’s well worth the scrutiny I’m giving it.]
UPDATE: Welcome, InstaPundit readers! Man, Glenn sure likes it when I talk smack about my former party. Heh. :) Anyway, feel free to have a look around. Some of you might remember me as the Katrina guy, though I also do a lot of blogging about politics, sports — especially, this time of year, college football — and a variety of other topics. The front page right now is actually more political/newsy than usual.
UPDATE 2: Mcjoan has responded. My response to her response is here.
|
Categories: Joe Lieberman, Election 2006
|
October 10th, 2006 at 9:07:53 am
I believe Cheney has since corrected himself and said he misspoke. He also meant to say that Saddam was reconstituting his program, not the weapons, themselves. It has no bearing on the mcjean post but agrees with Lieberman that what Cheney said was not true. Even Cheney agrees.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:30:25 am
There was a long post on this issue (I think on Volokh) about a year ago, which demonstrated that Cheney, during the interview in question, referred several times to Saddam’s having reconstituted his nuclear weapons PROGRAMS, and then at one point referred to his having reconstituted nuclear weapons. Obviously, in context, a slip of the tongue. I don’t think Lieberman is being particularly honest in making this accusation against Cheney. But it’s all politics: not a field in which honesty or integrity is expected or rewarded.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:31:43 am
But since Saddam neither had nuclear weapons nor was reconstituting his program, does that mean Lieberman voted to go to war even though he didn’t think Saddam actually had nukes? That’s better?
Also, is North Korea currently “developing” nuclear weapons, or do they “have” them?
October 10th, 2006 at 9:36:10 am
In fact, Cheney said twice in the same interview that Saddam was “trying” to reconstitute his nuclear program. Only when repeating the claim the third time, when there was some narrative interruption, did he truncate his statement. The Left has since spun this garbled quote as a lie by Dick Cheney.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-volokh063003.asp
October 10th, 2006 at 9:39:50 am
I saw that post by “mcjoan” and thought the same thing, but I didnt comment for fear I’d get troll rated and move a little closer to being banned. This will be all over in 4 weeks. Lieberman will win and we can have the satisfaction of knowing these… leftists are all depressed when they should be celebrating a big democratic victory. Thats gonna make it extra sweet for me. Both the conservatives and the leftists Kossites are gonna lose big, at the same time! Thats something that may never happen again, enjoy it.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:40:13 am
Anyone can “develop” nuclear weapons. As we’ve seen from the North Koreans, that’s a long ways from having them. At the same time, you’d just as soon interrupt that “development” as wait for some countries to “have” them.
Re Kos: Some ally this guy is. With Lamont in the tank, he can’t distance himself far enough. I’m glad he’s getting more media play - the public is seeing him for the lowlife he is.
What’s interesting about Lieberman is that he follows a recent pattern of poliicans who become incredibly popular to the degree the can step out bfrom under their party’s shadow. Consider Schwartzennegger, a man with a popularity built outside politics, who plays the game by his own rules. Guiliani doesn’t play by the rules either - a divorced, ‘pro-choice’ Republican who’s not averse to gun control. But Rudi built a following out of his post-9/11 actions, so he can avoid the tail-wagging-the-dog state of Republican politics.
These guys can run within their party’s structure (at least, Lieberman WILL do so next time), yet be their own men. And the public is loving it.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:46:07 am
Great minds think alike…
October 10th, 2006 at 9:50:30 am
Illiterate or Lying, the Kos Years
The ongoing battle with illiteracy at DailyKos. Or lying. It’s unclear which is the case.
October 10th, 2006 at 9:51:17 am
Joe Lieberman is a feckless waste. He wimped out against Cheney in the ‘00 debate, then he carried his water for 6 years. This country would be in far better shape if Joe thought less about himself and more about the party he represents. He’s a TERRIBLE national politician and has done very little to further the desires of the very liberal state he represents, so what;s the upside to having him?
I think the fact that this childish blog is so lustily linked by Instapundit speaks volumes. Keep keeping up the Lieberman/Vichy tradition of providing cover for bread crumbs.
Ted Lamont
October 10th, 2006 at 10:07:30 am
Uh, Ted, I believe the voters who elected Lieberman probably thought he represented THEM, not “the party.” Your slip on that point says a lot about what’s going wrong here. A little more logic and a little less name-calling and insult-tossing (”waste,” “wimped out”, “TERRIBLE,” “childish”, “Lieberman/Vichy”) would make for a more persuasive comment.
October 10th, 2006 at 10:20:11 am
I’m in the process of saving up a billion dollars.
That means I already have it, right?
(Gee, I didn’t know that much money could fit in my wallet!)
October 10th, 2006 at 11:10:59 am
Think of it like this “Phillep”.
Charles Manson is in the process of trying to kill you. You want us to just wait until he actually kills your sorry butt — and then punish him with “severe sanctions” — or would you prefer we interrupt the process and arrest him for criminal conspiracy? The choice is yours.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:11:24 am
McJoan connects development with possession of Nukes. Not a logical identity but not exactly a lie, as in GOP swiftboating, like cut and run.
We’re talking about a war that burns $8 billion/month, 2700 US lives thus far, 10-15x in wounding, 40x in Iraqi deaths, that now per the NIE has now become a terrorist training ground. That’s the Bush outcome.
To equate a political campaign and it’s tactics with a war an her tactics seems misplaced. Fine, get pissed off if you want but realize the magnitude or scale of the 2 is quite different.
Cheney has been deliberately obscure, diffuse and ofuscating on Iraq, Saddam and terrorists and their relationship. He publically still asserts “alledged facts” he knows are incorrect. Rather than leveling with America, and being honest with themselves the administration “stays the course”
Einstein wrote “insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result”; presumably Bush expects a different results. What that is in terms of objectives after 4 years America still doesn’t know … Win the war on terror, right.
When it comes to committing troops, giving the president unfettered power in the context of lies, deceit and real falsehoods. Lieberman is a pushover. He’s let CT voters and American’s alike down, for rolling over. Maybe his intention is to honor the presidency at whatever cost. That seems a poor unrealistic choice, in hindsight and he is and should be paying the price.
Instead Lieberman should be asking deep questions about himself, the WoT and his allegiance to the GOP on this issue. Eventually the US was forced to withdraw from Vietnam. Mostly cause the Administration, liked to pretend about facts on the ground. the same is happening in Iraq.
The Iraqi’s want us to leave. we’d breed fewer Jihadists if we weren’t there.
It’s not about cut and run, it’s about downsizing our commitment, in a logical way, …., on our terms, before we have too, on theirs. It’s OBLs Afghanistan 2.0 all over again yogi….
PR can’t alter fact, Good PR emphasizes accomplishments, good deeds and benefits. But PR, mood enhancement and lies about reality can’t alter facts on the ground, and the GOP is discovering that during this election season.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:12:57 am
It the Ted’s in this world that are making me vote for Joe. Ned is a worthless poser and his ads are quite frankly disgusting. I can generally igore politicla ads, but not this year. My TV is off more than on.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:28:17 am
“Ned is a worthless poser and his ads are quite frankly disgusting.” You mean like morphing Osama bin laden’s face with that of a US senator? Joe provided cover and comfort for members of that party, a party that has politicized a tragic moment in American history while enablers like Joe moped along whining about “bipartisanship”. Joe got tossed because of that and really little else.
Uh, beatrix, learn to read, I said he poorly represented the people of his state too. As far as being persuasive, I am pretty sure you have made up your mind on these matters.
Ted Lamont
October 10th, 2006 at 11:40:34 am
Brandon…
I think Glenn likes to link to you because you speak the truth about a number of things, whether they are against your former party, or against the current asses in power. (If you can’t tell, I can’t stand either party.)
Just keep up the good writing and stay true to yourself.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:43:42 am
Ted Lamont - (somehow I doubt you are the real deal), Joe hasn’t been tossed yet. He’s still the sitting US Senator. He only lost the Primary. That’s way different then being tossed.
Funny thing is, even if Joe wins, the Democrats don’t lose anything. Joe is still a Democrat and will still vote the Democrat line 90%-95% of the time. Probably a better percentage than most other Senators from either party.
October 10th, 2006 at 11:58:45 am
It’s interesting to me that Lieberman’s supporters seem to be pretty rational and excited to support him. But Lamont’s supporters (witness “Ted” above) seem unable to produce anything but spittle-flecking, name-calling diatribes. They hate hate HATE Lieberman, but do they like Ned? Is there anything to Ned Lamont’s candidacy, or is it 100% bile?
October 10th, 2006 at 12:09:12 pm
“I think Glenn likes to link to you because you speak the truth about a number of things, whether they are against your former party, or against the current asses in power.” This is plain wrong, Instapundit’s link farm is one of the most consistent perpetrators of smear and innuendo on the right.
“Funny thing is, even if Joe wins, the Democrats don’t lose anything. Joe is still a Democrat and will still vote the Democrat line 90%-95% of the time. Probably a better percentage than most other Senators from either party.” This is is exactly right. Which is why it is such a good thing for the majority of Democrats in CT and the US. Ned wins you get a real progressive fiscally minded Bloomberg manager type. If Joe wins you have someone with deep connections who hopefully will have realized how far off the reservation he has gone. Having the privelege of being called the least traitorous senator by these “through the looking glass” Cheneyans is hardly something to be proud of.
Dan, if hating someone is not a valid reason to vote for their opponent how do you explain the piles of Republican success over the past 12 years?
Ted Lamont
October 10th, 2006 at 12:22:31 pm
[…] @ 12:17 pm • Tuesday, 10 October 2006 • Category: The Loony Left Dog bites man, via Insty: This promine […]
October 10th, 2006 at 12:42:47 pm
You’re a big yawn, Ted.
October 10th, 2006 at 1:19:23 pm
“You’re a big yawn, Ted.”
From a big tent funnyman such as yourself that is a direct hit on my self esteem. I will persevere in getting you to change your mind. Failing that, I can’t but be a somewhat better person for the effort.
Ted Lamont
October 10th, 2006 at 2:14:21 pm
Ted, insulting people doesn’t change their minds. That’s why I suggested before that your comment would have been more persuasive if it were less insulting. I count several more insults in your several comments since then, but no more logic. If changing minds is really want you want to accomplish, I suggest you start by changing your style.
As for whether my mind is made up, you don’t know, and you don’t have any logical basis on which to form an opinion, so why even speculate about it?
October 10th, 2006 at 3:15:49 pm
Aw, is little Teddy Lamont upset that Lieberman is going to win?
Gee, who can tell?
October 10th, 2006 at 3:18:21 pm
Joe provided cover and comfort for members of that party, a party that has politicized a tragic moment in American history
Um, idiot, your side believes Bush carried out the attacks.
Any comments about “politicizing” 9/11 from the likes of you, ardent supporter of F-911 are nothing but hypocritical.
October 10th, 2006 at 3:19:19 pm
The Iraqi’s want us to leave
Lie.
You can’t demonstrate this is true in any way what so ever.
October 10th, 2006 at 3:33:20 pm
Hey Beatrix, you like nice guys? Have fun with “The Ace” one of the saddest lying weirdo trolls around. Check out his blog it’s wonderfully fact free so it goes down easy.
Brendan, you’re probably a decent guy, but when you give fungus like The Ace even a tiny bit of shade,it is nearly impossible to extract.
Ted Lamont
October 10th, 2006 at 5:22:37 pm
Ted -
So your saying that bannings should start occuring since you don’t like the guy? What a mensch.
Mister Snitch! - Winner of most insightful comment of thread so far!
“What’s interesting about Lieberman is that he follows a recent pattern of poliicans who become incredibly popular to the degree the can step out bfrom under their party’s shadow. Consider Schwartzennegger, a man with a popularity built outside politics, who plays the game by his own rules. Guiliani doesn’t play by the rules either - a divorced, ‘pro-choice’ Republican who’s not averse to gun control. But Rudi built a following out of his post-9/11 actions, so he can avoid the tail-wagging-the-dog state of Republican politics.”
The undercurrent in the public’s feeling towards government today is not anti-incumbent. It’s anti-establishment. They want politicians who vote their motivations and stated positions that fall within a certain viewpoint (i.e., conservative, liberal) but keep independence from being lockstep with a particular party.
October 10th, 2006 at 5:51:39 pm
You know mensch is a compliment right?
I am not advocating banning anyone. My point is “The Ace” hates Joe Lieberman too, he just hates Ned Lamont more.
And he, like Instapundit, use this blog to their own advantage. They both have the goal of eradicating all liberals and all progressives. Joe Lieberman provided a lot of cover for the neocons and broke the camels back with his comment about criticizing Bush during a war. He has been the party leader who time and time again has sat back and let the Bush administration lie and slander his very own friends and party members.
So my warning about lying with dogs like The Ace is simply that. Enjoy it when they kill you last.
Win or lose, the primary should have made the needed correction in Joe’s future conduct. Also, by the way, if the good guys get the house back it will have nothing to do with Joe.
Ted Lamont
October 10th, 2006 at 6:00:41 pm
Just goes to show, the only people who told the truth and were 100% correct were the weapons inspectors, who consistantly maintained that Iraq neither had nor was developing nuclear weapons. You can argue that Lieberman shouldn’t have given the Bush administration the benefit of the doubt based on their track record, and you’d be right, but he wasn’t the only one who wasn’t listening to reason.
October 10th, 2006 at 6:14:44 pm
Ted,
I think that her calling you a mensch was meant in utter sarcasm…you understand sarcasm right?
October 10th, 2006 at 6:20:57 pm
You’re defending the literal sense of what Joe said, and missing the message that Joe is trying to convey. But you know that in politics, the precise literal meaning of what someone says is usually not the real point. The real point is about creating impressions. Then the question becomes whether Joe is trying to create a false impression.
Cheney, and the Bush administration in general, were generally pretty careful not to say directly that Saddam had nukes. They spoke ominously about mushroom clouds, etc. They said things that might have created that impression among those not paying close attention, but rarely if ever made an outright statement to the effect that Saddam was in possession of nukes at that time.
So what exactly was Joe *really* skeptical of? Not much, if anything, because Cheney was not in the habit of saying what Joe now says he never bought. It’s misdirection to obscure the fact that Joe swallowed almost everything Cheney and the Bush administration said without a trace of skepticism. In fact I’ll bet if you asked Joe to come up with even one *specific* statement by Cheney that he didn’t buy, he would come up empty. Maybe with a Lexis-Nexus search he could find something to cling to, but he’s just grasping for a way to create a false impression.
October 11th, 2006 at 2:59:06 pm
Hey Brendan,
I remember you from Newington! I’ve got a tip for you, since you’re soliciting above for them: STFU until you get a clue.
October 11th, 2006 at 4:20:05 pm
I find myself in essential agreement with Ted Lamont here. I think this is a distictive sign of our times: there is virtually no limit to the bile and skillful manipulation and outright deceit current in our political discourse. And most of us partisans really _feel_ the sting of te other guy’s venom and feel utterly justified in ladeling up that much and just a bit more. It’s the utterly justified part that’s scary, of course. That said, I recognize this in myself and in my opponents. Bat there is a certain point where you resolve that you will not be outgunned … that one is willing to compromise one’s principles in order to defend them. I believe the Repubs have long ago made that decision and I find the faux (fantasy?) outrage of Mr. Loy to be just pathetic. Nixon had “outraged” supporters at the end. So to Senator Lieberman. I do hope he loses.
October 11th, 2006 at 5:02:21 pm
John -
Oooh, snappy. You buy that off a band member during third period?
October 19th, 2006 at 7:45:26 pm
The White House eventually laid the Cheney mis-speak to rest on July 17, 2003, but the fun never ended:
Q Actually, in my discussions with officials here and elsewhere, the people never pushed the nuclear thing as much as the chemical and biological thing. But on the other hand, Vice President Cheney said flatly at one point that Iraq is reconstituting it’s nuclear weapons.
MR. McCLELLAN: He was referring to its nuclear weapons program. If you go back and look at that interview, I know which one you’re citing. And repeatedly throughout that interview he was talking about reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. You’re right about that one statement was said, but he was referring to reconstitution of a nuclear weapons program.
(Hey, I was on this this like Cheney on a hunting companion.)