His Conservative bona vides are strong. House Majority Leader from 1995 to 2003, one of the architects of the so called "Republican Revolution" and chief author of the "Contract with America." Oh yea, for you social conservatives, remember he's also the guy who called Barney Frank, "Barney Fag" and then apologized, saying it was all a slip of the tongue. So we know he's a solid (if somewhat homophobic) conservative.
In a recent interview, he said - wait let's first get through the fun stuff. When he was asked whether the current Bush presidency is a "failed presidency" he answered:
I've said over the years that every president either ends up a pleasant surprise or a bitter disappointment. And we haven't had a pleasant surprise since Ronald Reagan. I don't see how anybody can look at the Bush presidency and say this was a success in public policy terms.To Congressman Armey, dubya's a failure in public policy. Heck I've been saying that for a long time.
Now onto more serious matters. In the same interview,when asked about dubya's war, he answered:
I'm not sure that it was the right thing to do. You might say removing Saddam from power was a right thing to do. Maybe it was, but was that necessarily then our responsibility to do that? And was it our responsibility to do that by invading a country that had in no way declared any war on us?"Maybe it was..."??? Wait a second, didn't Howard Dean get run over the coals when he said "I suppose it's a good thing" that Saddam Hussein was ousted?
Yes, yes he was. Where is the outcry from God's Own Party when Dick Armey says that taking out Hussein MAYBE was the right thing to do. Does he have doubts??
Anyway when reminded that he voted for the war, Dick Armey responded:
I did, and I'm not happy about it. The resolution was a resolution that authorized the president to take that action if he deemed it necessary. Had I been more true to myself and the principles I believed in at the time, I would have openly opposed the whole adventure vocally and aggressively. I had a tough time reconciling doing that against the duties of majority leader in the House. I would have served myself and my party and my country better, though, had I done so.So what does Dick Armey believe? He believes that (at least partially) this president's a failure, he's not sure the war in Iraq was "the right thing to do" and that his own job pressures as Majority Leader got in the way of doing what was right for the country.
6 comments:
I love all these politicians (Armey, Hagel, Clinton to name but three) who, with the benefit of hindsight, claim they were wrong in their vote for the war. How courageous of them.
At least McCain is sticking by his vote, especially when the going gets tough. That's integrity.
I never have been one of his followers, but he's growing on me.
Why is it "integrity" to stubbornly stick to a decision that turns out to be completely (and in this case fatally) wrong?
Wouldn't "integrity" mean owning up to the mistake and living with the consequences?
Um, X, have you seen his minute-by-minute flip flops recently? My gosh, he's so all over the place that one has to question whether he's just being a politician or is suffering from short-term memory loss. The Straight Talk express - NOT.
Click on the video here - http://therealmccain.com/
This is just a sampling. There is much more. I used to think McCain was one of the good guys. Now I think he wants to be president so desperately that he's lost track of why he's even in Congress.
Well, X, I sort of agree with you, but I think the issue should be more complicated. At the time, like Armey said, Congress was handing the President a blank authorization to do whatever. Of course, everyone knew what he would do, but since Congress didn’t authorize specifics, their conscience was clear. Meanwhile, Congress critters now say they were convinced by the special evidence they alone were seeing, except that we now know the special evidence had all sorts of caveats. I will say that when the President was saying yellowcake and Colin Powell was saying aluminum tubes, I personally had huge doubts. But the administration was whipping up the country, and it would have taken an extraordinary Congress person indeed to say there’s no evidence here. The Republicans were tied, as Mr. Armey said, by party obligations and the Democrats are perennially afraid of be labeled soft on defense or terror.
What’s changed now is that the country has lost the stomach for the war. This is where I agree with X, if you say something is the right thing to do, you don’t flip to saying its wrong just because you aren’t winning. I can see where maybe we should admit lost, because the war was mishandled or the Iraqi insurgent tougher than us, or whatever.
I really think any Congress person who voted for the war, based on the evidence, and is now saying it is wrong, based on the evidence, ought to resign, since they are serving their constituents so poorly.
This is one of the places were morality meets reality in a most unpleasant way. Seeing the results of the last election, politicians are scrambling to find the place where they offend the fewest voters. To some extent, I sympathize, given the pressures the Congress was under in 2003. Still, that they end up pointing fingers and making outrageous statements now while soldiers are dying is really pretty distasteful. And then Congress persons wonder why they can’t get elected President.
i don't think this country has lost it's "stomach" i think we and the congress have finally admitted to ourselves that we were given false info in the very begining. how could congress not go back and revisit their votes for the invasion of iraq after learning this fact?
i and many others still support our war in afgahnistan.
i and EVERYONE on either side of the debate about iraq SUPPORT out troops.
i used to be a supporter of mccain and still remember how his own party tried to paint him unfit to be president because of the "supposed" emotional instablity due to his being a POW. remember that? i was furious that they would use a cheap and offensive tactic like that to keep him from the republican nomination at that time.
now, i fear, he wants the presidency so badly that he is pandering to the very groups he rightfully distained years before, like the ultra fundamentlist religious right, robertson and others.
and to state that if we don't support this "surge" we don't support the troops is beneath the man.
To the Bush administration and many of its supporters, persistence in a failed policy is a virtue.
"Stay the course in Iraq," they advise us. "We should have kept up the effort in Vietnam," they claim, and, "Cuba would be our ally now if Kennedy hadn't pulled the plug on the Bay of Pigs."
If the framers of the Constitution had taken this attitude, there would be no Bill of Rights. Slavery would still be in effect. Citizens would still lack the ability to elect senators directly. And women would still be barefoot, pregnant, and without the franchise.
No business succeeds without modifying its gameplan from time to time. And speaking of game plans, sticking to one in a football game when you're down 34-3 is considered the height of stupidity.
But here we are, squandering the lives of our youth and the gold of our progeny in Iraq, and administration supporters still praise those who refuse to learn the lessons taught by failure.
When I was in grade school back in the early Holocene epoch, we did not use the word "integrity" to describe those who covered their ears and chanted "La, la, la. I can't hear you."
Post a Comment