Outrage at McCain's "lies" is a total loser strategy.

[IAMX 3,055]

I rather hoped outrage wasn't the motivating factor for voting either for or against a party/president.

It started pretty much day one when Pelosi swore up and down before the 06 elections that she wouldn't pursue impeachment or even investigations of Bush's numerous illegal policies/acts. Democrats promised oversight, promised this, promised that, and.. came through with nothing. Bush still got all the funding he wanted, still got no oversight as promised, no investigations, nada.

So really the Democratic platform is one about empty promises, while the Republican one is pretty much about pissing the rest of the world off and benefiting the rich. People just do a good job at pretending it has some positive outcome for the U.S. as a whole. Of course, Republicans also talk about fiscal responsibility and other things which they completely lied about.

[nowhereman 1]

Everything else aside, I agree witht the OP's tag line. Outrage at McCain's lies isn't going to win anyone anything.

Again I totally disagree. It has been proven in the past that ignoring lies won't make them go away (people assume that silence = acceptance). Hillary tried the same tactics after she fell behind & some of the mud she threw on the wall stuck. Obama needs to denounce McCain's tactics & then fight back with actual facts (McCain has enough real skeletons in his closet; there's no need to fabricate any).

Obama has the right idea when he ties McCain to Bush... when they debate Obama needs to have actual facts & quotes to blast McCain with. If he can pull this off he'll win.

[Peikko 1,575]

As you didn't interpret what I said correctly, you are not disagreeing with what I said, but with what you want me to have said.

[SteveLaura 0]

Newsflash: The inspectors were in Iraq conducting unfettered inspections until some Yahoo called the UN from 1600 Penn Ave telling them to pull the inspectors out. Don't sit there pretending that Bush wanted the inspections complete. There's nothing on the books that supports any such thing. Bush wanted to go in. The inspections were progressing nicely and, hence, had to be stopped as the completion of them would have destroyed Bush's made up case to go in.

The inspectors were kicked out from 1998 to 2002 so there were no inspections at all. Saddam hindered inspections using the spying claims so they did hinder inspectors.

Bush got the inspectors in here unlike Clinton when he backed down in 1998 so your memory of events is flawed and your theory is bunk.

1997

"The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23).

Iraq expels American members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13).

1998

"Iraq suspends all cooperation with the UN inspectors (Jan. 13).

UN secretary-general Kofi Annan brokers a peaceful solution to the standoff. Over the next months Baghdad continued to impede the UN inspection team, demanding that sanctions be lifted (Feb. 23).

Saddam Hussein puts a complete halt to the inspections (Oct. 31).

Iraq agrees to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors (Nov. 14), but by a month later, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise (Dec. 15).

The United States and Britain began four days of intensive air strikes, dubbed Operation Desert Fox. The attacks focused on command centers, missile factories, and airfields—targets that the Pentagon believed would damage Iraq's weapons stores (Dec. 16–19)."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline1.html

From your link:

Nov. 18, 2002: UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, for the first time in almost four years.

Feb. 14, 2003: In a February UN report, chief UN inspector Hans Blix indicated that slight progress had been made in Iraq's cooperation.

Feb. 22, 2003: Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1.

Feb. 24, 2003: The U.S., Britain, and Spain submit a proposed resolution to the UN Security Council that states that "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441," and that it is now time to authorize use of military force against the country.

France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."

Mar. 1, 2003: Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.

Feb. 24–Mar. 14, 2003: The U.S. and Britain's intense lobbying efforts among the other UN Security Council members yield only four supporters (in addition to the U.S. and Britain, Spain and Bulgaria); nine votes (and no vetoes from the five permanent members) out of fifteen are required for the resolution's passage. The U.S. decides not to call for a vote on the resolution.

Mar. 17, 2003: All diplomatic efforts cease when President Bush delivers an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave the country within 48 hours or else face an attack.

Mar. 19, 2003: President Bush declares war on Iraq.

[alienlovechild 75]

Newsflash: The inspectors were in Iraq conducting unfettered inspections until some Yahoo called the UN from 1600 Penn Ave telling them to pull the inspectors out. Don't sit there pretending that Bush wanted the inspections complete. There's nothing on the books that supports any such thing. Bush wanted to go in. The inspections were progressing nicely and, hence, had to be stopped as the completion of them would have destroyed Bush's made up case to go in.

The inspectors were kicked out from 1998 to 2002 so there were no inspections at all. Saddam hindered inspections using the spying claims so they did hinder inspectors.

Bush got the inspectors in here unlike Clinton when he backed down in 1998 so your memory of events is flawed and your theory is bunk.

1997

"The UN disarmament commission concludes that Iraq has continued to conceal information on biological and chemical weapons and missiles (Oct 23).

Iraq expels American members of the UN inspection team (Nov. 13).

1998

"Iraq suspends all cooperation with the UN inspectors (Jan. 13).

UN secretary-general Kofi Annan brokers a peaceful solution to the standoff. Over the next months Baghdad continued to impede the UN inspection team, demanding that sanctions be lifted (Feb. 23).

Saddam Hussein puts a complete halt to the inspections (Oct. 31).

Iraq agrees to unconditional cooperation with the UN inspectors (Nov. 14), but by a month later, chief UN weapons inspector Richard Butler reports that Iraq has not lived up to its promise (Dec. 15).

The United States and Britain began four days of intensive air strikes, dubbed Operation Desert Fox. The attacks focused on command centers, missile factories, and airfields—targets that the Pentagon believed would damage Iraq's weapons stores (Dec. 16–19)."

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/iraqtimeline1.html

From your link:

Nov. 18, 2002: UN weapons inspectors return to Iraq, for the first time in almost four years.

Feb. 14, 2003: In a February UN report, chief UN inspector Hans Blix indicated that slight progress had been made in Iraq's cooperation.

Feb. 22, 2003: Hans Blix orders Iraq to destroy its Al Samoud 2 missiles by March 1.

Feb. 24, 2003: The U.S., Britain, and Spain submit a proposed resolution to the UN Security Council that states that "Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity afforded to it in Resolution 1441," and that it is now time to authorize use of military force against the country.

France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."

Mar. 1, 2003: Iraq begins to destroy its Al Samoud missiles.

Feb. 24–Mar. 14, 2003: The U.S. and Britain's intense lobbying efforts among the other UN Security Council members yield only four supporters (in addition to the U.S. and Britain, Spain and Bulgaria); nine votes (and no vetoes from the five permanent members) out of fifteen are required for the resolution's passage. The U.S. decides not to call for a vote on the resolution.

Mar. 17, 2003: All diplomatic efforts cease when President Bush delivers an ultimatum to Saddam Hussein to leave the country within 48 hours or else face an attack.

Mar. 19, 2003: President Bush declares war on Iraq.

Right. Bush forced new weapons inspections with a threat of renewed war but Saddam didn't allowed unconditional access. Revisionists now claim there were never any WMDs but that's not what happened. Compare weapons destruction in Ukraine, South Africa and between NATO/USSR/Russia for arms control agreements. There are protocols which Saddam chose to ignore and war was the result.

[nowhereman 1]

The whole mess reminds me of a sitation where cops (USA) arrest a criminal (Iraq & Hussien) , but lack proof to get a guilty verdict. Instead of letting him go they plant evidence to get a conviction. To add insult to injury the cops completely screw up the case. Some people would say that a criminal (Hussein) is off the streets, so it doesn't matter that the evidence was planted or the case was mishandled.

[SteveLaura 0]

France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."

What is wrong with this statement? Why the rush from US-UK? Saddam, as requested, begins dismantling weapons a few days after this counter-resolution.

[alienlovechild 75]

Why the rush from US-UK? Saddam, as requested, begins dismantling weapons a few days after this counter-resolution.

The US and UK were deploying troops to the region, it had little to do with another toothless UN resolution because Saddam ignored most of them. Saddam made some token gestures but wouldn't give unconditional access. When the pressure was off he'd do as he pleased.

The onus is on the nation being inspected to prove WMD-free not the inspectors. This how it worked in Ukraine and South Africa (Brazil and Argentiina , too?) and no one had a problem with it. Same is true to arms control agreements between NATO and USSR/Russia weapons destruction protocols. Saddam pretended to have WMDs to keep Iran at bay or so he said when he was captured.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."

What is wrong with this statement? Why the rush from US-UK? Saddam, as requested, begins dismantling weapons a few days after this counter-resolution.

From what I remember the administration basically went through the motions at the UN, all the while making a big deal in the media about how no decision had been made and that war would always be the "last resort".

However it seemed abundantly clear that the decision had already been made - and that regardless of Saddam's cooperation after the 2nd resolution that the Bush administration had already decided on a war policy - and was just trying to spin the facts to make it sound like they hadn't.

Edited September 15, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[zqt3344 21]

McCain is the only candidate that offers true straight talk and straight answers, unlike the Ovomit campaign!

Outrage at McCain's "lies" is a total loser strategy.

By Mickey Kaus

Updated Monday, Sept. 15, 2008, at 2:52 AM ET

Mark Halperin's three pieces of advice for Obama seem sound. (They are 1. Ignore Palin; 2. Get in McCain's head the way McCain's getting in Obama's; and 3. Refocus on the economy in an accessible way.) ... To which I'd add:

4. It's a good week for point 3!

5. The current lib blog-MSM-campaign tack--getting outraged by McCain's "lies"--is a total loser strategy. Why?

a)

MSM outrage doesn't sway voters anymore. It didn't even back in 1988, when the press tried to make a stink about George H.W. Bush's use of "flag factories," etc. After this year's

failed MSM Palin assault

, it certainly won't work;

B)

When Dems get outraged at unfairness they look weak. How can they stand up to Putin if they start whining when confronted with Steve Schmidt? McCain's camp can fake umbrage all it wants--the latest is that

an

Atlantic

photographer took some nasty photos that the mag

didn't

run!

--and nobody will accuse MCain of being weak. That's so unfair. A double standard. Dems can learn to live with it or complain about the unfairness for another 4 years. Their choice.

c)

It's almost always impossible to prove that a Republican attack is a 100% lie. Either there's a germ of truth (Kerry did hype his wartime heroism at least a bit) or the truth is indeterminate (i.e., there's no way of knowing what Obama meant by "lipstick"--just because he and McCain used the word earlier doesn't mean he didn't think using it

now

, after Palin's speech, didn't add a witty resonance).

d)

Lecturing the public on what's 'true" and what's a "lie" (when the truth isn't 100% clear) plays into some of the worst stereotypes about liberals--that they are

preachy know-it-alls hiding their political motives behind a veneer of objectivity

and respectability.

e)

Inevitably the people being outraged on Obama's behalf will phrase their arguments in ways well-designed to appeal to their friends--and turn off the unconverted. ('This is just what they did to John Kerry and Michael Dukakis!' As if the public yearns for the lost Kerry and Dukakis Presidencies. 'Today's kindergarteners

need

some

sex education

. Just because Republicans are old fashioned ...' etc. Or 'These are Karl Rove tactics,' which signifies little to non-Dem voters except a partisan rancor they'd like to put behind them.)

Lots of people like

bad Disney movies

, and don't like the kind of people who sneer at bad Disney movies.

6. There must be some way to disillusion the conservative base with McCain, at least a bit. I know the CW--Palin has locked in the base, freeing McCain to move left. But jeez, McCain isn't moving to the left just on immigration, and he isn't moving subtly. Listen to this new radio ad, which might as well be titled "Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research, Stem Cell Research." That's how often the phrase is repeated. How much more Screw-You-I'm-Taking-You-for-Granted can McCain get? Are conservatives complete suckers?

7. McCain's made great progress with independents by going against his party. Obama can do the same thing. Obvious areas of potential anti-Dem apostasy: Charter schools, firing incompetent teachers, class-based affirmative action, welfare. At least express some doubts about liberal legalism or the headlong rush to immigrant semi-amnesty. Last Tuesday Obama may have tried to make waves by talking about "schools filled with poor teachers"--a Dem no-no if there ever was one. It got buried by the lipstick pig. So don't complain. Say it again! ...

'The Lying King' Exposes Media's Palin Attacks

[SteveLaura 0]

France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."

What is wrong with this statement? Why the rush from US-UK? Saddam, as requested, begins dismantling weapons a few days after this counter-resolution.

From what I remember the administration basically went through the motions at the UN, all the while making a big deal in the media about how no decision had been made and that war would always be the "last resort".

However it seemed abundantly clear that the decision had already been made - and that regardless of Saddam's cooperation after the 2nd resolution that the Bush administration had already decided on a war policy - and was just trying to spin the facts to make it sound like they hadn't.

Exactly. The Downing St memo, I would argue, clearly showed that. However, if one wishes to dispute this, I ask again: Blix confirms that slight progress is being made. Requests that weapons are destroyed. Saddam begins to comply. France, Germany & Russia submit a resolution allowing for more time - Why the rush to war?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

France, Germany, and Russia submit an informal counter-resolution to the UN Security Council that states that inspections should be intensified and extended to ensure that there is "a real chance to the peaceful settlement of this crisis," and that "the military option should only be a last resort."

What is wrong with this statement? Why the rush from US-UK? Saddam, as requested, begins dismantling weapons a few days after this counter-resolution.

From what I remember the administration basically went through the motions at the UN, all the while making a big deal in the media about how no decision had been made and that war would always be the "last resort".

However it seemed abundantly clear that the decision had already been made - and that regardless of Saddam's cooperation after the 2nd resolution that the Bush administration had already decided on a war policy - and was just trying to spin the facts to make it sound like they hadn't.

Exactly. The Downing St memo, I would argue, clearly showed that. However, if one wishes to dispute this, I ask again: Blix confirms that slight progress is being made. Requests that weapons are destroyed. Saddam begins to comply. France, Germany & Russia submit a resolution allowing for more time - Why the rush to war?

The Downing Street Memo got no airplay in the US (not because it was "fake" but because it was a copy of an original document and wouldn't have stood up in court). Also that whole fiasco with David Kelly - and the BBC got burned for the content of a specific story suggesting that the government "sexed up" the case for war by exaggerating the regime's capabilities and intent. Outside the minutae of that specific story - the basic claim has been born out. The US and UK governments did exaggerate the threat from Saddam's regime, and they did promote certain pieces of derided intel as reliable evidence to justify the war to a skeptical public.

[rclouse 0]

Outrage at McCain's "lies" is a total loser strategy.

Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Well there is a point there - responding to smears and lies serves the purpose of tying up the other side on make retractions and clarifications. They should really stick to clarifying policy positions, rather than banging on about the underhandedness of the McCain camp.

[jom 4]