quote:

Congressman admits Democrats "stretched the facts," misled anti-war supporters about supposed plans for ending War Submitted by Jeff Emanuel on Thu, 05/22/2008 - 8:18pm. Congressman Paul Kanjorski (D-PA) has been a fairly undistinguished member of the House of Representatives for nearly a quarter of a century. He is a career member of the Financial Services Committee who has made little or no name for himself since his first electoral victory, and has maintained incumbency through the funneling of pork back to his district. Even his Wikipedia entry says that Kanjorski "usually plays behind-the-scenes roles in the advocacy or defeat of legislation and steers appropriations money toward improving the infrastructure and economic needs of his district." Never one to stand out in a crowd outside of his own district if he could help it up until now, Rep. Kanjorski's public life may be about to change in a major way very, very quickly, and for a very big reason. You see, Paul Kanjorski has an honesty problem. More specifically, Paul Kanjorski's problem is that he was publicly honest about the intentional dishonesty of Congressional Democrats (and Democrat candidates) in the run-up to the 2006 election -- particularly with regard to the War in Iraq. Watch the video below (a transcript follows): Transcript: "I'll tell you my impression. We really in this last election, when I say we...the Democrats, I think pushed it as far as we can to the end of the fleet, didn't say it, but we implied it. That if we won the Congressional elections, we could stop the war. Now anybody was a good student of Government would know that wasn't true. But you know, the temptation to want to win back the Congress, we sort of stretched the facts...and people ate it up." The truth in Mr. Kanjorski's statement is both evident and obvious, and has been )to any who have been paying attention) since the Democrat out-of-Iraq-now campaigns began in early 2006. It has become more obvious with every bill the Democrat-led Congress passed that, rather than ending the war, simply gave the President nearly every single thing he asked for, without putting up any real fight (as opposed to the semifrequent, yet brief, preening-for-the-cameras moments of solely rhetorical dissent). The impression the Democratic Congress gave during those minor-at-best wars over the continuation of the War was that it was simply incompetent. Reps. Pelosi, Hoyer, et al wanted to end the war as soon as possible -- at least, that's what they kept saying. Unfortunately for those who largely elected them on that basis, the best and brightest Democrats in elective office were simply unable to figure out any way to outsmart and outmaneuver the buffoon in the White House on the issues of wartime budget and policy, instead (inadvertently, I'm sure) ending every fight on the wrong side from their point of view, having yet again given the President every single thing he was asking for. Now, Rep. Kanjorski has very publicly pulled the curtain back on the Democrat Congress' real intent and objective. "If we won the Congressional elections," he says, "we [implied that we] could stop the war." Yes, they did -- that is why the "Netroots" lined up behind these Democrats with their money and their soapboxes (but more importantly, with their money). That is why the "peace" activist supported them; ending the war NOW was the primary task they took on themselves to carry out, and the promise to do so was the basis on which so many of them were elected or reelected. Now the mask slips -- and with it comes an admitted level of condescension directed by those Congressional Democrats at those who were gullible enough to support them for something that they themselves knew could not be done. "Now anybody was a good student of Government," said Kanjorski, "would know that wasn't true [that they "could stop the war"]." Fortunately for those Democrats who campaigned, and were elected, based on their war-ending promises, their hardcore supporters, their activists, and their base of voters, are all made up of people who are, by Mr. Kanjorski's reckoning, very, very poor students of Government. But all of that was justified to these incumbents and first-time candidates. Taking advantage of poor, uneducated rubes? Abusing trust, and leaving those who offered it stranded along the way? All acceptable -- because, again by Mr. Kanjorski's own description, of "the temptation to want to win back the Congress." "We sort of stretched the facts," he says. "And people ate it up." Yes, they did -- and that may well be an apt description of the fate awaiting Rep. Kanjorski himself once his fellow Congressional Democrats find out what secrets he has been publicly admitting. After all, there is another election coming up in a mere five-plus months -- and they not only need the issue of their continued (purported) attempts to stop the war in order to gain support, but they need the votes of those same poor, poor students of government, who will believe every one of those stretched facts and, in the words of Mr. Kajorski, "eat up" what the Democrats had hoped to offer under the guise of something that was still eminently (and immintently) attainable under a their Congressional (and presidential) leadership. Now, thanks to Mr. Kanjorski, that cat is out of the bag. He had better hope that those poor students of government are equally poor watchers of YouTube and followers of the news, or else the veneer of the Democrat promises on Iraq will be long gone, courtesy of his honesty problem. >LINK<

this thread is not about the Iraq war. it goes to what i've been saying here for a few years now. the Dems want the power back.

for years prior to George W. Bush the Clintons had liberals fooled into thinking one thing or another about what Bill wanted for this country as president. lacking any moral or ideological core it became evident that Bill wasn't really in it for the country more than he was in it for himself. whats clear now to the left, as evidenced through Hillary, the Clintons are about power and not much else.

if you want "more of the same" but without Bush's war, vote Democrat and you just might get what you wish for. but make no mistake, the war in Iraq will end on it's own merits (Iraq's merits) and not because some new champion of the left has willed it.

as for the rest of the Democrat party, get used to them saying whatever it is you want from government and getting less than you bargained for in return...or worse, more.

right. so its ok that the republicans lied to get us into war, but the dems are suddenly evil for pretending they might be able to get us out?

and you can criticise bill clinton as much as you like, coz your current president makes bill look infallible.

its gonna be a bitter 8 years for you and i hope you're gonna have more exciting stuff to fling at the dems than that

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN right. so its ok that the republicans lied to get us into war

after all this time you honestly think "Republicans lied to get us into war"? you don't at all think thats just a shallow and poorly thought out criticism?

if youre really willing to believe you were "lied to" then you'd have to agree that the Dems were accomplice to that fact. you'd have to. you can't have it just one way.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN and you can criticise bill clinton as much as you like, coz your current president makes bill look infallible

Bill Clinton waged all kinds of war. with Iraq and many others. he just had zero ideoligical compass and personal fortitude that precluded him from making any good come from it.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo after all this time you honestly think "Republicans lied to get us into war"? you don't at all think thats just a shallow and poorly thought out criticism?

i was merely contrasting my poorly thought out criticism against the poorly thought out criticism you posted.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo if youre really willing to believe you were "lied to" then you'd have to agree that the Dems were accomplice to that fact. you'd have to. you can't have it just one way.

it wasnt the democratic party that was sexing up the intelligence reports this is bush's war, lets not try and confuse that fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Bill Clinton waged all kinds of war. with Iraq and many others. he just had zero ideoligical compass and personal fortitude that precluded him from making any good come from it.

yeah, coz there's so much good coming from iraq right now.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i was merely contrasting my poorly thought out criticism against the poorly thought out criticism you posted.

thats funny because you haven't addressed anything i've said in my initial post or anything in the article or the video evidence within the article. just tired anti-war talking points that can be shot down with determined key strokes and a search button

quote:

it wasnt the democratic party that was sexing up the intelligence reports

i hate saying this man, the anti-war media has really gotten to you.

quote:

yeah, coz there's so much good coming from iraq right now.

there sure is. you have to step away from your usual sources to see it.

Last edited by Q5echo on May-23-2008 at 11:18

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo the anti-war media

This is by far and away the funniest thing I've read today. Thanks!

As if the media stood to gain from the absence of war... lol. We all know that peace sells papers!

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo thats funny because you haven't addressed anything i've said in my initial post or anything in the article or the video evidence within the article. just tired anti-war talking points that can be shot down with determined key strokes and a search button

i have no interest in refuting it, i just find the concept of republicans accusing the democrats over lying re iraq is just pretty damned funny. even if i accept the OP as absolute truth, it still feels like a petty and amusingly hypocritical diatribe.

the recent republican mantra has been characterised by a whole lot of fear-mongering in an attempt to scare people away from those hippy democrats, and you guys have the audacity to criticise them for perhaps campaigning on withdrawal/peace (for the US at least) when they might not have a solid plan for when and how?

kinda reminds me of the bush admin's plans for the invasion.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i hate saying this man, the anti-war media has really gotten to you.

yes, saddam wasn't a nice guy, and nobody thought that. but many of those democracts relied on the information provided to them by the bigwigs in washington.

go watch that doco from the cutting edge on the bush admin's relationship with the intelligence services during the timeframe in question.

do you think the executive were more, equally or less responsible for going to war against saddam's imaginary WMD than the senator's that let them?

do you think they are at all to blame for the new methods of gaining bad intelligence which became commonplace on their watch? i mean, where does the buck stop?

___________________