Lawrence O' Donnell Pissed - Pundits All "Combat Cowards"

[RamboLiberal]

Advocating war is easier when you and your family are not endangered by it. I've reached a Rangel-like breaking point with my TV pundit colleagues who championed the Iraq war and now say we can't leave even if we went there for the wrong reasons. For every one of them, I have a simple question: Why aren't you in Iraq? Or why did you avoid combat in your generation's war? The one unifying characteristic that all of us men in make-up on political chat shows share is fear of combat. Every one of us has done everything we can to avoid combat or even being fitted for a military uniform. Just like George Bush, Bill Clinton, and Dick Cheney, we are all combat cowards. It takes a very special kind of combat coward to advocate combat for others. It's the kind of thing that can get you as angry as Charlie Rangel

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/rangel-is-right_b_34667.html?view=print

[EST]

1. Kewel!

A man worth listening to.

[SaveElmer]

2. Bill Clinton should not be included on t hat list...

He genuinely opposed the VietNam War, and has not gotten the U.S. into the business of preemptive war.

Bush, Cheney and the rest were content to cheerlead from the sidelines!

[RamboLiberal]

3. A lot of people opposed the war and still ended up in Vietnam

I have no problem with O' Donnell including Clinton on that list. And on edit Hillary sure has no problem playing the politically expedient role on this war to further her ambitions.

In 2002/2003 Clinton could've spoken out more forcefully against this war, and Hillary should've voted against it!

[SaveElmer]

6. Wrong on both counts...

O'Donnell's point was that chickenhawks such as Bush, Cheney etc, cheerlead these wars from the sidelines while avoiding service themselves. Bill Clinton is not in that category.

And your comment regarding Hillary is wrong as well...go back and read her floor statement on the IWR, and her subsequent communications with constituents...her position was never in support of aghgressive war.

[Dr Fate]

7. But Hillary voted "yes" instead of "no"- despite her speeches. n/t

n/t

[SaveElmer]

9. Motivation matters....

She has nothing to apologize for!

[Dr Fate]

11. And and she was motivated to vote "yes" instead of "no." n/t

n/t

[SaveElmer]

14. A reasonable position to take at the time...

Hence no apology required.

[RamboLiberal]

16. At the time?

The only excuse at the time was to preserve your political future! IMHO every Dem who voted Yes at the time has to live with that shame. There were only a few profiles in courage in the '02 congress.

How much better for Kerry it would've been if he hadn't been saddled with "I voted for the war before I voted against it."? I think he'd have stood up better explaining a principled "No" vote.

Damn, most of us didn't have the access to the intelligence they did and we knew it was a lie!

[SaveElmer]

18. You are wrong IMO...

We assume the worst out of President Bush now because we have long experience with him. Many smart and admirable Democrats took the same position as Hillary at the time. Which was to give the Presient a stick with which to reinsert inspectors. It didn't work, and as Hillary acknowledged had she known then what became apparent later, she would not have voted for it...

She has nothing to apologize for, her vote was reasonable based on the information she had and the goal she was trying to achieve.

[Dr Fate]

22. Wrong- Bush was a known liar at the time- and his Iraq info was known to be lies.

And the fact that other DEMS decided to trust Bush (or pretend to trust him) instead of the people with the facts (people who did NOT have a record as known liars, BTW)does not save Hillary.

DEMS who voted "yes" should have voted "no"- period.

Apologies? Who cares about an apology? Apologies or lack there of are the least of our worries.

[SaveElmer]

23. So again...your position then...

Is the every Democrat who voted for the IWR were unconcerned about the deaths of US soldier and Iraqi civilians to achieve their personal political ambitions?

[Dr Fate]

28. No-my position is that they should have voted "no" instead of "yes"

A "yes" vote means they choose to trust proven liars over people with the facts, or they pretended to trust them.

I suppose the 3rd choice could be that they did not have access to the internet or international media that debunked Powell's lies- but I would find that hard to believe.

[SaveElmer]

30. So...

You say:

1. They knew the information given by the CIA and State Department was demonstrably false.

2. You find it hard to believe they did not have access to these unimpeachable alternate sources of information.

3. They voted yes anyway...


The only logical conclusion then is they were lying about their motivation for voting as they did, and they were willing to tolerate the death of thousands of people to further their poitical ambition...

[Dr Fate]

34. Perhaps many hoped that thousands of people would not die?

Remember- the known, proven liars also told us it would be a "cake walk"- so the "thousands of deaths" was not an issue for people who were dumb enough to trust Bush.

Either way, they had to know that Powell's speech contained info that was based on forged documents- and they had to know that the "up to date British intelligence" was really based on another forgery that was 12 years old. It was undisputed and all over the foreign press- they either ignored it or choose to trust Bush anyway, even after it was shown he was lying.

[SaveElmer]

39. So...Clinton, Kerry, Edwards et al.

Were willing to accept some deaths as long as they were not in the the thousands?

[Dr Fate]

19. Wrong- the resonable and fact-based postition would have been to vote "no" instead of "yes."

Apology? I dont need apologies-what good would that do? I need DEMS to vote based on facts as opposed to votes that are based on believing lies told by known liars.

The only way her "yes" vote would be reasonable is if she had no way of knowing about the literally hundreds of lies told by Team Bush, Powell and the media. She and her staff had access to the internet, international media and dissenting CIA reports- so we know she had access to both sides of the issue.

She choose to believe (or pretend to believe) KNOWN LIARS instead of siding with the facts- that was not only unreasonable- but 100% wrong on the facts and outcome (No WMDs, no 9/11 connex, etc,etc).

[SaveElmer]

20. Right...

She is going to believe internet sources over what her husbands CIA director was telling her...get real.

So I guess her John Kerry, John Edwards and the other Democrats who voted for it were ok with the death toll they knew was coming to further their political ambitions?

[Dr Fate]

24. I'm not talking about blogs- I'm talking about the debunking of Powell's lies to the UN.

Powell's lies were debunked, almost point by point in the international press- literally the very day after his "home run" speech.

She had access to that FACTUAL, undisputed info about his lies either via internet, magazines, newspapers or sattelite TV.

The fact that Powell's speech was based on forged documents and 12 year old plagerized documents that were passed off as "up to date British intellignece" was never in dispute- but she voted "yes" anyway.

So, you are wrong- just like Hillary was.

[SaveElmer]

27. Cite your sources....conclude your argument

Links etc...

And what would lead her to believe international press accounts were reliable...?

And again...if you believe Hillary's (and other Democrats) motivations for voting for the IWR were not what they said they werre...the only conclusion is they were willing to tolerate the death and maiming of 10's of thousands of people...

Is that you argument?

ANd if so...did you vote for John Kerry knowing that this was the case?

[Dr Fate]

31. LOL! You need links that Powell's speech was proven to be lies?

Ever heard of the "yellow cake" and the forged nigerian documents, just for starters? LOL! Links! Too funny. Perhaps you were living a cave at the time???? You certainly were not paying attention to or seeking out accurate news.

Yeah- I voted for & campaigned for Kerry- and guess what- he was successfully labeled a FLIP-FLOPPER because he voted "yes" instead of "no"- so I dont see how bringing up his failed bid helps your argument.

[SaveElmer]

33. Of course we now know they were lies...

Cite sources produced at the same time trhat demonstrably showed them to be fals!

[Dr Fate]

35. Wrong- we knew Powell was lying & using forged docs before the invasion. n/t

n/t

[SaveElmer]

38. Again...please cite contemporary sources...

That anyone would have access to, that would have led United States Senators to disregard what the CIA and Secretary of State were telling them.

[SaveElmer]

21. Is your position then..

She voted to have 10's of thousands of AMerican's and Iraqi's killed to further her political ambition?

[Dr Fate]

26. My position is that she voted "yes" when she should have voted "no."

A "yes" vote means she either honestly trusted known, proven liars or pretended to.

Neither scenario says much about her judgement.

[SaveElmer]

29. Why won't you acknowlede the logical conclusion of your argument?

If she voted yes...as did many other Democrats...for reasons other than the ones she stated...the only logical conclusion is that she and the other Democrats who voted for the IWR were willing to tolerate the death and maiming of 10's of thousands of folks to further their political ambition?

[Dr Fate]

36. I adressed YOUR conclusions in post #34. n/t

n/t

[RamboLiberal]

10. On Hillary Bull - If she ends up with the nomination

I'll hold my nose and vote for her. IMHO she has no excuse for voting Yes for the war. With her husband being the ex-prez she had more intel than most in the Congress that Bushco & company were ginning up the charges.

And she's been playing her position too damn DLC for my tastes when other Dems have spoken out more forcefully.

[Dr Fate]

12. She has an excuse- she trusted known liars-Bush/media instead of anti-war DEMS with the facts

Hey- I never said it was a good excuse- but she does have an excuse: She decided to trust known liars instead of the people with the facts.

[SaveElmer]

13. Your position is tenable...

If you ignore what she has said from the time of the IWR vote till now.

[RamboLiberal]

15. Bill too did what was politically expedient back in his day

He did every damn thing legal to get out of the draft. He admits in his letter he was concerned about his political future. I don't blame him - he had a lot of company among his peers. I know he agonized over the decision. Maybe O' Donnell unfairly paints him - but he did avoid the draft and he did end up CIC where he ordered the military in to decisions many in the military at the time were not pleased about. If a draft had been in effect at Clinton's time I'm sure there would be many on the Republican side and even on Dem who would've had justification for wanting to avoid it.

[SaveElmer]

17. That is not my argument...

Yes Bill Clinton did do what he needed t o to get out of the draft...

As did many people...many admirable people...

However, he did not stand on the sidelines cheering on a war he was afraid to go to himself. He was opposed to the VietNam war, and as President did not send American soldiers into harms way for flimsy or self-serving motivations.

That is the difference...and why he should not be included with the likes of Bush and Cheney...

Bill CLinton is not a chickenhawk.

[tblue]

4. Good point. It's a whole other thing to be a pro-war draft dodger.

[HereSince1628]

25. Many Vietnam protesters answered their draft calls.

And for me that somewhat balances out the strength of this particular defense based on the idea of Clinton choosing multiple draft deferments as a war protest.

THAT war is over.

Clinton took legal deferments, so did Cheney.

BUT as president, Clinton didn't advocate or commit the nation to a war of aggression against another nation. Cheney did, and I hold Cheney responsible for that. It's enough to want to see one of those two as a defendant at the Hague.

[blm]

41. He didn't do it, but was crucial, PUBLIC support for Bush on HIS pre-emptive war.

And THAT mattered.

[speedoo]

5. Excellent!

We need to keep pounding away at the chickenhawks.

[KennedyGuy]

8. Agreed..

Nothing pisses me off more than idiots who are so eager to send others off to battle while sitting safely behing a keyboard.
And I am not speaking of anti-war folks hers..just the pro war cowards who are afraid to fight the wars they are so fond of starting.

[Hieronymus]

32. O'Donnell was awesome on Scarborough.

Poor Holt and Scarborough were apoplectic as O'Donnell ranted.:bounce:

[Norquist Nemesis]

40. They were in shock at first! LOL!

Did you notice how Larry sat quietly while Terry Holt got first crack. Larry quiety shook his head (glad they had the camera on him). Then, as soon as Larry started talking, Terry Holt butts in (as they always do)...but Larry didn't stop (as has so often been the case with people advocating 'the Left'! That was awesome!

[Donald Ian Rankin]

37. Opposing war is easier when you're not one of the people needing defening, though.

The argument that you shouldn't advocate a war unless you're willing to fight in it yourself is daft, because it's based on the assumption that there are never costs in not fighting one.

Saying "you have no right to support the war in Iraq unless you're willing to fight in it" is *exactly* the same as the conservative canard I saw trotted out regularly five years ago that "you have no right to oppose the war in Iraq unless you're willing to live under Saddam".

Both fighting and not fighting a war have costs. Saying that you have to be willing to bare one set of costs or the other yourself to be allowed to express an opinion as to which is higher is foolish.

In the case of the war in Iraq, the costs of fighting it are clearly higher than the costs of not doing so would have been, but that's entirely irrelevant to what he was saying.