I just want to take a moment and for posterity note some very deceptive, borderline lies from Bob Dutko from yesterday. Dutko doesn't make his show available for download after the fact, and that's probably good for his credibility because if we went back and listened he'd have a lot of problems. We can't listen to past shows and document everything, but at least I can put down what I catch.
Apparently there's a new George W Bush presidential library opening, so Dutko wanted to "remind" people of the historical facts because there's so much "revisionist" history from the left. Dutko is here to correct the record.
Even the Democrats said Saddam had WMD, he says. That much is true. Actually, it's even worse than that. People like Bill Clinton worked behind the scenes to make this war happen. But Dutko went beyond that. "Even Ted Kennedy thought Saddam had WMD and needed to be disarmed."
Check the speech from Kennedy from which Dutko gets this. An impassioned denunciation of this march to war, a war that will swell the ranks of Al Qaeda and increase terrorism. Sure, lots of people need to be disarmed. Pakistan, N Korea. But that doesn't mean we should march to war and wreck these countries which will have the effect of putting Americans in greater danger. What Dutko says is technically true, but he enlists it as if Kennedy agreed with this war, which he certainly did not.
Dutko proceeded to tell us that Saddam had an operational link with Al Qaeda and provided Al Qaeda with training camps. Take a look at the Wiki discussion on this which uses the 9-11 Commission Report as it's source. It would be one
thing to say that "some people believe" that Saddam provided training
camps for Al Qaeda. Even that is irresponsible since this claim has
very little credibility. But it was more than that. Dutko stated it as
a fact, as if it was uncontroversial. What's uncontroversial really is to say there was no operational link.
Dutko says that you can't fault Bush because Americans supported the war too, only shifting after it began to go bad. That's not really true. Americans opposed a war if it were to lack UN support. After the war was launched they supported it like they do all wars. That's more just patriotism. Now that we are in we want to get behind it and support our troops. But to evaluate what Americans thought about Bush's decision you have to look at the opinion of Americans prior to the war.
Regarding the collapse of the economy, of course that was all the Democrats fault for requiring risky home loans via Fannie and Freddie. This is not dishonesty from Dutko I guess because at least I know conservatives do honestly believe this sort of thing, but it's also a claim that cannot be supported by the evidence as I discuss here and here. Dutko had the gall to add that right wingers were offering dire warnings whereas it was the liberals that said everything was fine. As far as I know you had some from both groups on both sides of the fence on this question. But my sense is that more people on the left were concerned. Assertions that things are great from right wingers are abundant. I collated economist Mark Perry of the right wing corporate front group "The American Enterprise Institute" here. Here's Bill Kristol. On the left were people like Paul Krugman, who has likewise been right about what has been happening recently. Of course few can be expected to know how bad this could be because deregulation prevented us from even knowing about the magnitude and details associated with derivatives and credit default swaps thanks to right wing demands that these items remain deregulated. Democrats were involved too, but the problem here is the right wing ideology that free markets are best. That's not a liberal claim.
Dutko emphasized revisionist history throughout this monologue, and also his belief that ultimately Bush's approval ratings would continue to climb and he would be regarded as a success. With spin like this he may be right.