I protest.

The better man redux.

Another posting in reply to more wingnuttery, this one a winger who takes issue with my calling Clinton the better man. Go there to see David's comment; here is my response.

Sigh. "Just because Michael Moore says it, doesn't make it so." Well, um, I'm not the one who brought up that particular name. Nor would I, since I haven't seen his latest movie. On the other hand, I do know lies when I hear them.

Bush claimed that Saddam Hussein was an "imminent threat." He wasn't.

Bush very, very strongly implied that Hussein and Al Qaeda were closely connected and that Hussein was involved in the events of 9/11. Neither were true, Hussein had nothing whatsoever to do with 9/11, none of the hijackers were Iraqi (most were, in fact, Saudi) and the Hussein government had only the most cursory of contacts with Al Qaeda, wherein they were given what amounts to the cold shoulder.

Bush promised, to Congress and to the American people that he would exhaust all other avenues before going to war with Iraq; this is the reason many in Congress gave him the authorization to do so. Instead, Bush didn't even allow the UN inspection team time enough to finish their most recent investigation. (LA Times, March 18, 2003, "SHOWDOWN WITH IRAQ; Diplomatic Door Closes on U.N. Security Council; Arms inspectors and aid workers are being evacuated from Iraq in anticipation of war.")

Is that concrete enough for you? I can easily collect more, if you like. How about his claiming responsibility for decisions made during the events of 9/11 that were actually made by other people? The many times he has publically proclaimed his support for some government program when in actuality he was working behind the scenes to remove or reduce its funding? His claim that his tax cuts would help the middle class and poor when in fact the reverse has proven true? His advocation of "fiscal responsibility" while proposing budgets that created a record U.S. deficit?

Need more? I can certainly provide them. Bush and his administration has provided no dearth of material. On the contrary, there is an embarassment of riches.

As for your grammar snark, my use of "that" is correct. "Who" would also be acceptable but your claim that "who" is the proper word is in fact incorrect.

As for your claim that Edwards "lied" in his statement in his DNC speech that, "unlike George Bush," the Kerry administration would have had a coalition of other countries helping us in Iraq, well, um, it's you who are either mistaken or lying. Edwards simply did not say that. He did say:

… That's why we will strengthen and modernize our military.

We will double our Special Forces, and invest in the new equipment and technologies so that our military remains the best equipped and best trained in the world. This will make our military stronger so we're able to defeat every enemy in this new world.

But we can't do this alone. We have to restore our respect in the world to bring our allies to us and with us. It's how we won the World Wars and the Cold War and it is how we will build a stable Iraq.

With a new president who strengthens and leads our alliances, we can get NATO to help secure Iraq. We can ensure that Iraq's neighbors like Syria and Iran, don't stand in the way of a democratic Iraq. We can help Iraq's economy by getting other countries to forgive their enormous debt and participate in the reconstruction. We can do this for the Iraqi people and our soldiers. And we will get this done right.

A new president will bring the world to our side, and with it — a stable Iraq and a real chance for peace and freedom in the Middle East, including a safe and secure Israel. And John and I will bring the world together to face our most dangerous threat: the possibility of terrorists getting their hands on a nuclear, chemical or biological weapon.

With our credibility restored, we can work with other nations to secure stockpiles of the worlds most dangerous weapons and safeguard this dangerous material. We can finish the job and secure all loose nukes in Russia. And we can close the loophole in the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that allows rogue nations access to the tools they need to develop these weapons.

That's how we can address the new threats we face. That's how we can keep you safe. That's how we can restore America's respect around the world.

Of course, since you took the trouble of listing the countries that are part of the so-called "Coalition of the Willing," why don't you also list the respective troop strength provided by each of those countries? Could it be that doing so might undermine your argument? The United States has more than 100,000 troops in Iraq right now; it was more than 120,000 a year ago. The second largest contingent is provided by the UK with 8,300 troops, then Italy with 2,800, Poland with 2,350, the Ukraine with 1,550 and the Netherlands with 1,300. South Korea is supposed to begin deployment of 3,000 additional troops this month. That's all of the countries with more than 1,000 troops there. The rest have 500 or fewer. Source: BBC NEWS, Coalition troops in Iraq. Dated June 20, 2004.

So not only did Edwards not lie, but even if he had made the statement you claim he did, it would still have been true in terms of absolute numbers.

Regardless, I am awaiting your retraction.

I will ignore your inflammatory comment regarding Democrats "stopping at nothing to distort reality." As for "failure and lying to the American public," name one business for which George W. Bush was responsible and which succeeded while he was running it. The lying part I think I've already addressed sufficiently. Unless you disagree, in which case I can gladly come up with yet more examples of Bush lies, half-truths and deception.

You know, I don't think I've ever tried to say that the economy was in wonderful shape when Reagan took office. I do, in fact, remember those times directly, having been a young adult at the time. Double-digit inflation was a scary thing. And, yes, interest rates did drop from a high in 1979/80 to around six to seven percent (prime) by the time Reagan left office. On the other hand, the annual deficit rose from $73 billion in 1980 to $155 billion by time Reagan left office, having reached a peak of $221 billion in 1986 (and reaching a new peak under Bush I of $290 billion in 1992). At the same time the national debt rose from $994 billion in 1980 to $2.6 trillion in 1988 (then it almost doubled again under Bush I, to $4 trillion by 1992).

Gore, in his May 26 speech to the MoveOn PAC, said,

The president exploited and fanned those fears, but some otherwise sensible and levelheaded Americans fed them as well. …

So Gore didn't say that Bush "played on our fears." He mentioned that Bush "exploited and fanned those fears," which I believe is demonstrably true.

Gore further said,

So today, I want to speak on behalf of those Americans who feel that President Bush has betrayed our nation's trust, those who are horrified at what has been done in our name, and all those who want the rest of the world to know that we Americans see the abuses that occurred in the prisons of Iraq, Afghanistan, Guantanamo and secret locations as yet undisclosed as completely out of keeping with the character and basic nature of the American people and at odds with the principles on which America stands.

I believe we have a duty to hold President Bush accountable - and I believe we will. As Lincoln said at our time of greatest trial, "We - even we here - hold the power, and bear the responsibility."

Again, Gore didn't say that Bush "betrayed this country." He said that he betrayed the nations trust. Most trusted Bush when he spoke; they didn't expect that the man would lie to them and try to mislead them. Kerry may have believed that Hussein had chemical, biological or even nuclear weapons, but he trusted Bush when he promised to let the U.N. Inspectors finish their job. And given the evidence that has since come to light, it is emphatically not "reasonable to believe that either the WMDs were sold to another government … ." The evidence shows that any such weapons were destroyed at the end of the first Gulf War or at some time early in the intervening twelve years. Right-wing fantasies notwithstanding.

Bush acted upon partial and obviously false information. The "Nigerian yellow cake" document was a blatant forgery that had already been rejected by British Intelligence and by most in the CIA. He refused to allow the inspectors to do their work. Within days of 9/11, according to Clark and others, he was trying to make a case to attack Iraq, despite Hussein having had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks of 9/11 and Bush having been told so repeatedly.

According to those who keep track of such things, the latest recession started in March, 2001. Look it up. I'm not one to blame a sitting President for the state of the current economy; even Reagan's legacy was a huge debt and a further overburdened working class rather than a "bad economy." And that is exactly my point. George W. Bush has overwhelmingly cut taxes for the top few percent of the most wealthy Americans. He has cut funding for social programs that are there to help those in most need and he has shifted the burden of taxation from those who can most easily afford it to those who can barely get by at the best of times. Even then, rather than spending to increase employment and improve the economy, he spends to increase corporate profits and improve his friends' bottom line. No-bid contracts. Halliburton. The Medicare prescription program. He sends kids off to die and be maimed for life while he cuts veteran's programs. He praises the firefighters who gave their lives in the World Trade Center towers while he cuts the funding that would sustain their ranks and maintain their equipment.

I don't blame Bush for what has happened while he has been in office. I blame him for what he has done while he has been in office. Bush doesn't lie because he's "not a Democrat," he lies because he can't achieve his goals any other way. He is a spoiled little rich kid whose family has bailed him out of every failure in his life.

No, I don't agree with your "take" on things, David, but I also don't believe that it's really your take. It reads to me like a long list of Republican talking points.

And my patience with this topic is at an end. No matter how you might try to spin it, in a comparison between Clinton and Bush, Bush loses. Badly.