Gore's severe memory lapse regarding Iraq

Gore said during a CNN interview:

“Talk about somebody that shouldn't be talking about making the country less safe, invading a country that did not attack us and posed no serious threat to us at all,” Gore said of Cheney.

Iraq was no serious threat to us at all? What about Bill Clinton's speech regarding bombing Iraq in December of 1998? (emphasis mine):

Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.

Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.

I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.

The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.

Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.

This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere.

And so we had to act and act now.

Let me explain why.

First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.

Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.

If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.

The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.

Dowd covers for Obama by attacking Cheney

Maureen Dowd's latest column attacks Cheney because Cheney dares to have the audacity to defend his actions while Vice-President. (hat tip Hot Air)

After a distracting and pointless comparison to Carter, Gore vs. a sitting president, we finally get to the crux of her unhinged Cheney harangue:

Well, then you’d have to say that, in effect, we’re prepared to sacrifice American lives rather than run an intelligent interrogation program that would provide us the information we need to protect America,” Doomsday Dick said.

Cheney has replaced Sarah Palin as Rogue Diva.

At first glance it appears that in Dowd's mind, Cheney is a drama queen because he is speaking his mind and not giving Obama the benefit of the doubt to the commander-in-chief. Just like Republicans said Gore and Carter shouldn't have done. Cheney's comments are from personal knowledge from being directly involved with the policy at hand along with being attacked now over that policy. Carter and Gore had no involvement or decision in the policies they criticized.

What was the point in bring it up? Dowd's real purpose is to begin the spin to counter the Bush-Cheney success:

No matter if or when terrorists attack here — and they’re on their own timetable, not a partisan red/blue state timetable — Cheney will be deemed the primary one who made America more vulnerable."

The fact is that in the 88 months after 9/11/2001 during Bush-Cheney, the US wasn't attacked. That didn't just somehow happen. Cheney was a part of that success and has said that the interrogation techniques played a role.

Dowd's push back is that Cheney, who is a private citizen, has a greater influence on the security of the US than the current President.

Obama's Groveling has Consequences.

As of April 3, 2009,

Obama's "submission" to the Saudi King.

April 5, 2009,

North Korea ignores UN resolutions and launches a missile over Japan, a key US ally demilitarized by the US after World War 2.

April 8, 2009,

US-flagged container ship attacked by Somali pirates

Conason, spinning the democratic mess

Joe Conason states, writes, " Ever since Election Day 2008, the usual suspects have been hard at work, deflecting responsibility from the Bush administration (and the Republicans in Congress) for the catastrophic effects of conservative policy enacted during the past eight years. Within days after Mr. Obama's victory, as stock prices fell, radio host and ideological commissar Rush Limbaugh exclaimed that we were already in the "Obama recession."

In fact, the economy had been shrinking for nearly a year by then, and the market was responding to bad economic news rather than the election result."

Hilariously, Conason ignores which political party has actually controlled both Houses since January of 2007.

And the Democrats have not only just controlled both houses of Congress since 2007, but have almost unlimited power in the house according to democrat Barney Frank, "In the House of Representatives, the majority party has almost unlimited power over the minority party. The majority party owns the committee chairmanships; it controls what bills come to a vote; and it is under no obligation to consider the ideas of the beleaguered minority"

More revealing Frank admits, "Forgotten too is the significant progress that was made after the 2006 elections, when the Republicans in Congress were repudiated by American voters. Ironically, this is the period in which I and my Democratic colleagues actually did possess the magical power needed to make real change in Washington -- we became the majority party. "

That magical power and SIGNIFICANT PROGRESS started in January of 2007, under the democrats, so they were in charge when "the economy had been shrinking for nearly a year by then", and not the Republicans.

And Obama voted for the 700 billion dollar bailout in the fall of 2008. Obama was an active participant in creating the so called "Bush deficit" he whines about inheriting.

9/11/2001 - Carville: "I hope Bush fails".

Sept. 11, 2001:
Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed."

Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.

"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I'm wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.

The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don't want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

Nov. 21, 2001:
Mr. Carville goes on to advise Democrats that in order to help "set up the congressional choice for next year" Democrats should characterize Mr. Bush's domestic policies as causing "economic damage, undermining social programs and geared towards big business." Apparently, in Mr. Carville's view, he is being sufficiently patriotic if he says, in essence: "Support our president even though he is a plutocratic parasitic insect that sucks the blood of the working people."

Nov. 30, 2001:
"The bottom line is, this is George Bush's recession," Rep. Nita Lowey, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee chief, says in today's edition of USA Today.

A spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee called the comments of Lowey, D-N.Y., "despicable" and predicted the attack would backfire.

"I think it shows incredibly poor political judgment to attack a president with an 86 percent approval rating," said NRCC communications director Steve Schmidt.

"The economy was in a slowdown in the last days of the Clinton administration, and the slowdown was exacerbated by the Sept. 11 attacks."

Fox News Channel reported tonight that former Clinton strategist James Carville and others planned the negative campaign a month ago.

Nov. 30, 2001:The House Democratic campaign committee is preparing an advertisement for use in targeted House districts spotlighting Republican support for repeal of the alternative minimum tax on corporations, which Democratic lawmakers criticized as a boon for big business.

Rep. Nita Lowey of New York, who heads the Democratic campaign committee, said in an interview with USA Today published on Friday that last month's vote to repeal the tax was ``unpatriotic, inappropriate and wrong'' given rising unemployment.
Lowey said the ad would run in at least three House districts and labeled the recent economic downturn ``George Bush's recession.''
Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle questioned the Republican reaction to the ad campaign. ``There is a sensitivity right now in the administration about the Bush economy,'' Daschle said. ``We're in a recession.''