Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) also launched into attack mode on the Senate floor Monday, claiming that Obama’s use of czars constitutes an “affront to the Constitution”:

ALEXANDER: According to news accounts, there are 32 or 34 so-called czars in the Obama White House. Respected voices in the Senate—Senator Byrd and Senator Hutchison, a senior Democrat and a senior Republican—have pointed out that these czars are an affront to the Constitution. They’re anti-democratic. They are a poor example of a new era of transparency which was promised to this country. They are a poor way to manage the government and they seem to me to be the principal symptom of this administrations eight-month record of too many Washington takeovers.

Watch it:

While Alexander may be using Obama’s appointment of special advisers as a political wedge today, he was singing a different tune during the previous administration:

Alexander Supported Bush’s Appointment of a Manufacturing Czar. Nearly six years ago Alexander spoke on the floor of the Senate in support of President Bush’s appointment of a manufacturing jobs czar: “[President Bush] talked about appointing a sort of manufacturing job czar in the Commerce Department, which I would welcome.” [9/2/03]

Alexander Supported Bush’s Appointment of an AIDS Czar. Alexander spoke in support of the appointment of Bush-nominated AIDS czar Randall Tobias: “Within a few weeks the Congress will be considering the nomination of Randall Tobias to be the new AIDS czar…who is not yet confirmed by the Senate. I hope he will be.” [9/3/03]

Alexander isn’t alone in his conservative hypocrisy on czars. Last July, Karl Rove angrily tweeted that Obama’s use of czars represent a “giant expansion of presidential power,” despite the fact that he himself was Bush’s “domestic policy czar.” And while the right may be using Obama’s czars as a way to wage politicized attacks against him, they were completely silent when the Bush administration used a number of these special advisers, including a “cybersecurity czar,” “regulatory czar,” “bird-flu czar,” “war czar,” and “Katrina czar.”

Under what’s known as the Mérida Initiative, the U.S. government agreed in 2007 to provide Mexico with $1.4 billion in funding to fight the war on drugs, but 15 percent (or $90.7 million) of the original funding and $24 million authorized under the Obama administration will be released only after the “secretary of state reports that Mexico has made progress on human rights.”

The reports of torture put that money’s release in jeopardy. As a result, Mexican human rights workers are accusing the U.S. of hypocrisy when it comes to human rights abuses, citing the mistreatment of suspected terrorists under President Bush. The Post explains:

Many Mexican human rights activists do not support the [human rights] conditions, noting that they were imposed by a U.S government widely accused of torturing prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

“It really takes a lot of cynicism, a lot of hypocrisy, for the United States to say, ‘We will give you money to fight drug trafficking as long as you respect human rights,’” said José Raymundo Díaz Taboada, director of the Acapulco office of the Collective Against Torture and Impunity, which documents abuses in Guerrero.

The accusations of hypocrisy highlight one of the hard-to-quantify costs of the Bush administration’s use of torture against suspected terrorists to extract unreliable intelligence: the loss of credibility as a champion of human rights. In recent months and years, in fact, a growing number of nations have rejected calls from the U.S. to end human rights abuses, citing the Bush administration’s actions:

China: In response to the State Department’s annual human rights report critical of the Chinese government, a government spokesman said the report “exposed the double standards and downright hypocrisy of the United States on the human rights issue, and inevitably impaired its international image.” [3/12/2008]

Iran: The L.A. Times reported on Iran’s latest response to the State Department’s latest human rights report, writing, “Iranian officials regularly accuse the West of hypocrisy in zeroing in on Iran’s human rights record, citing prisoner abuse allegations in the prison facility at Guantanamo Bay. [3/11/09]

Russia: In response to criticism from former Vice President Dick Cheney regarding Russia’s human rights abuses, then-Russian President Vladimir Putin asked, “Where is all this pathos about protecting human rights and democracy when it comes to the need to pursue their own interests?” [5/11/06. Similar remarks: 3/27/08]

Venezuela: The Venezuelan government responded to a recent State Department report on Human Trafficking, saying, “It is scandalous that a country…where torture has been practiced and terrorists are protected, pretends to prop itself up as a judge of human rights in the world.” [6/19/09]

As Matt Yglesias recently explained, the abuses that go on in Iran, China, North Korea, and other nations are perpetrated on a much wider scale and have gone on far longer than those that occurred in U.S. detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Cuba. But the fact remains that “whenever you read about these kind of techniques being applied in Iran or North Korea, it’s immediately apparent to everyone that it’s torture, it’s cruel, it’s inhumane, and it’s wrong.” Indeed, it was immediately apparent to the world that the U.S. abuses were torture as well. Now, Obama must work to rebuild the credibility that his predecessor squandered.

Republican leaders indicated Tuesday that they plan to press the issue of drilling in Alaska’s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge as part of a so-called budget reconciliation process, which cannot be subject to a Democratic filibuster–a tactic that has blocked the refuge’s development in the past. …

Budget Committee Chairman Judd Gregg, R-N.H. said it was reasonable to assume ANWR, as the refuge is commonly called, would be part of the budget measure.

“The president asked for it, and we’re trying to do what the president asked for,” Gregg said Tuesday after meeting privately with Republicans on his panel.

Matt Yglesias writes that “Gregg is being a hypocrite and deserves to be called on it; media outlets who quote him complaining without noting that he’s a hypocrite are being irresponsible.”

11:35: Fox pollster Frank Luntz’s focus group showed that a majority was “moved” by Obama’s performance. They especially liked his answer pointing out that McCain was “wrong” on nearly every aspect of the Iraq war, including when he said the Iraq war would be quick and easy and that Americans would be greeted as liberators:

11:34: Yglesias observes, “I’ve seen Joe Biden doing aggressive surrogate appearances on every network I’ve flipped to. I imagine he’s hitting all of them. Sarah Palin, by contrast, isn’t doing any networks.”

11:17: CNN chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour said she “giggled” when McCain messed up the pronunciation of Ahmadinejad’s name. When Anderson Cooper asked her if it was really “fair” to criticize him for that, she replied, “Why not? If it’s fair for anybody — Why not? If I stumbled, it would be a fair comment.”

11:04: Keith Olbermann highlights the fact that McCain admitted that the U.S. tortures. McCain has previously said waterboarding is torture, while noting that the U.S. has waterboarded. He also references the Zardari gaffe:

11:00: On ABC, New York Times columnist Tom Friedman called McCain’s claim that he has consistently supported alternative energy “a howler.” Friedman also quipped that McCain wouldn’t be able to pay for his new nuclear power plants by cutting $18 billion in earmarks.

10:58: Sen. Lindsey Graham on Fox: “Senator Obama, you’re not just naive, you’re dangerous.”

10:50: On CNN, Wolf Blitzer mentions the gaffe on Zardari’s name and says, “I don’t know where he got that. … It’s a difficult name for Americans to remember and pronounce, but you wouldn’t think John McCain would slip up on that.”

10:49: Fox’s Carl Cameron observed that Obama said that “I agree with John” at least eight times. Conversely, McCain said that Obama didn’t “understand” at least seven times.

10:43: MSNBC’s Pat Buchanan claims McCain was the winner because “he came off as tough but almost as mean…Obama came across as a very nice guy.”

10:42: ABC’s Charlie Gibson and PBS’s David Brooks and Mark Shields note that McCain never looked at Obama during the debate.

10:37: Veterans organizations have come out against McCain. He received a grade of D from the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America and a 20 percent vote rating from the Disabled Veterans of America; Vietnam Veterans of America noted McCain had “voted against us” in 15 “key votes.” Both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars criticized McCain for opposing Sen. Jim Webb’s 21st Century GI Bill.

10:29: McCain has a hard time pronouncing the name of the President of Iran:

…and the President of Pakistan (Zardari, not “Kidari”):

10:27: Sen. Obama is the first to mention climate change, which Thomas Fingar, the top intelligence analyst in the United States, has warned will be the central foreign security threat “for the next administration and beyond.”

10:26: McCain referred to offshore drilling as a “bridge” technique that would lower prices “in the short run.” In fact, the Bush administration’s own Energy Department has concluded that it could have no significant impact before 2030.

10:25: McCain has correctly identified the resurgence in Russian military power as driven by increased oil wealth, but his record has shown consistent opposition to the alternative energy initiatives that might undercut this aspect of Putin’s strength.

10:20: McCain mocks the idea that Kissinger supports talks with Iran without preconditions. Just yesterday, CBS News’s Katie Couric — after interviewing Sarah Palin, who called the idea of meeting without preconditions “naïve” — checked with Kissinger. Couric: “Incidentally, we confirmed Henry Kissinger’s position following her interview. He told us he supports talks, if not with Ahmadinejad, then with high level Iranian officials . . . without preconditions.”

10:17: McCain takes the view that to meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be to legitimize Ahmadinejad’s views on Israel. Does that mean that McCain’s meetings with Nouri al-Maliki constitute an endorsement of his various anti-Israel views?

10:10: Discussing ways he would save money in the federal budget, McCain said, “Look, we’re sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don’t like us very much.” But as the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler points out, McCain is confusing foreign aid with the amount of money that Americans spend on foreign oil. The U.S. spends only $39 bllion a year in foreign aid.

10:09: McCain just restated his intention to form a “League of Democracies.” He mentioned Germany and France as potential partners. Would he allow Spain to join, after refusing to meet with the Spanish Prime Minister Zapatero as President? (Update: League of Democracies? It’s a “hidden agenda” to “kill the UN.”)

10:02: McCain’s view that Pakistan was a “failed state” when Pervez Musharraf launched his coup in 1999 is bizarre. Pakistan had a functioning government led by then-Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif. Sharif attempted to fire Musharraf as head of the Pakistani military and replace him with ISI Director Ziauddin Butt. Instead, Musharraf launched a coup, citing allegations of corruption against Sharif. Nobody on either side took the view that Pakistan was a failed state.

10:00: McCain just said that President Reagan is the person he admires the most. However, in the past, he has claimed that his “major role model” was President Teddy Roosevelt.

9:58: Having recently said any timeline is good for withdrawal from Iraq, McCain again railed against setting a timeline, despite the fact that Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki endorsed Obama’s plan and ultimately agreed with President Bush to withdrawal all troops from Iraq in 2011.

9:57: McCain insists “You don’t say…out loud” that you’re going to strike inside Pakistan. Singing “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran” presumably still ok, in McCain’s view.

9:54: McCain says that “increased Iranian influence” would have been one of the consequence of defeat in Iraq. What does he think the consequences of invading Iraq have been? The current Iraqi government is controlled by political parties that were literally founded in Iran.

9:52: McCain did question whether the surge would succeed. In January 2007, he said, “I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not.” (Update: More McCain surge doubts — “I am very nervous about this new strategy. I am very doubtful that we have enough troops. I don’t know if the Maliki government will be strong enough.”)

9:51: Obama noted that McCain said before the Iraq war that U.S. soldiers would be greeted as liberators. In July this year, McCain claimed “We were greeted as liberators.”

9:50: McCain keeps talking about the need for “victory” in Iraq, but General Petraeus himself has disavowed that goal, “This is not the sort of struggle where you take a hill, plant the flag and go home to a victory parade… it’s not war with a simple slogan.”

9:49: McCain has repeatedly claimed that he knows what troops want — “Let us win.” U.S. soldiers, however, are giving 6:1 to Obama.

9:45: McCain warned that — absent the surge — we might have seen “increased sectarian violence.” In fact, the most up-to-date research indicates that one of the leading causes of the recent decline in violence is that the surge was followed by large-scale ethnic cleansing, and violence only dropped in Baghdad once mixed neighborhoods had largely been eliminated.

9:44: McCain has already used the joke that he wasn’t “elected Miss Congeniality in the Senate” twice during this debate. Ironically, Sarah Palin was Miss Congeniality.

9:41: McCain claimed to have opposed Bush on climate change, torture, and Guantanamo Bay. In fact, McCain allowed his party’s platform to question the science of climate change, and he voted to allow the CIA to continue waterboarding.

9:40: More on McCain’s discretionary freeze: A generous estimate of the savings from the freeze would be $50 billion. This leaves McCain with a budget hole of about $650 billion.

9:38: McCain said “We’re sending $700 billion a year overseas to countries that don’t like us very much.” How about we’re sending $10 billion a month to a country, Iraq, whose people want our military to withdraw.

9:37: John McCain’s proposal for an across-the-board spending freeze in discretionary spending would entail large per capita cuts in everything from education to the FBI and federal prisons to national parks, highway and bridge repair, food stamps, etc. Along with having a deleterious impact on people who rely on these programs, the cuts would cause a contractionary impact on economic growth at a time when the country is in need of a second stimulus to forestall the risk of a deep recession.

9:37: The Wonk Room dissects John McCain’s promotion of his “45 nuclear plants by 2030” as a job creation boon.

9:34: 34 minutes in and no questions about foreign policy in this foreign policy debate. (Update: First foreign policy question comes 39 minutes in)

9:32: McCain said unequivocally that he is against ethanol subsidies. But in 2006, he said “I support ethanol and I think it is a vital, a vital alternative energy source not only because of our dependency on foreign oil but its greenhouse gas reduction effects.”

9:30: McCain commits a fashion faux pas. The effect of his red and white striped tie produces a wavy, strobing effect on regular televisions, one of the first tips media trainers tell men to avoid. It looks better in HD.

9:29: In his list of wasteful earmarks, McCain made no mention of the infamous Bridge to Nowhere, which his running mate supported.

9:26: McCain declares that there’s “a lot more than $18 billion” in earmark spending. Perhaps he’s returning to his unsubstantiated claim to be able to cut “$65 billion” in earmarks “that’s already on the books.” That figure included aid to Israel, which McCain later said he would not cut.

9:25: While the United States does have the second highest corporate rate in the world on paper, the effective tax rate is in line with the rest of the world’s leading economies. Further, two-thirds of American corporations pay no taxes.

9:21: McCain rails against wasteful earmark spending, but as Sen. Claire McCaskill pointed out, his running mate Palin “has been an earmark queen in Alaska.”

9:18: McCain rightly points out that American workers are more productive than ever. Since November 2001, employee productivity has risen more than 15 percent. However, “the average wage for the typical American worker has inched up just 1 percent (after inflation). … [S]ome economists say this may be the first time in American history that the typical working household goes through an economic expansion without any increase in income whatsoever.”

9:17: McCain mocked an earmark to study bear DNA, but his own running mate, Sarah Palin, has requested money to study seal DNA.

9:16: While McCain claims the U.S. is still the “greatest exporter,” it is in fact Germany that holds that distinction.

9:14: McCain said he’d warned about the problems in the financial markets, repeating something he’s said several times since the extent of the problem became clear, but ignoring his previous acknowledgment that he “did not” anticipate the crisis.

9:11: When McCain refers to “the greatest fiscal crisis of our time,” he’s probably hoping nobody thinks back to the second-greatest fiscal crisis of our time — the Savings & Loan fiasco and the Keating Five imbroglio in which he was implicated but which the media has graciously declined to bring up throughout the duration of the campaign.

9:09: Flashback: Karl Rove attacked Obama for not wearing a flag on his lapel, claiming that “to a lot of ordinary people, putting that flag lapel pin on is true patriotism.”

9:08: Just off the bat, this is the first-ever general election debate to be broadcast in high definition. Most of the public will be watching in low-def, of course, but we won’t be the only ones watching in HD. And given the age/wrinkle gap between the two candidates, we think you might see something of a Kennedy-Nixon effect where your impression of the matchup will be determined in part by your technical platform.

9:02: Barack Obama enters, wearing a flag pin on his lapel. John McCain has no flag on his lapel.

The ThinkProgress family — TP staff, Wonk Room staff, and Matt Yglesias — will be offering real-time rapid response research, commentary, and insights during and after the presidential debate right here on this thread.

In addition to this live thread, all three sites will be doing normal blog posts over the course of the evening. Stay tuned. We’ll be starting shortly.

Here are a few other blogs that are going to be doing some live-blogging as well: Swampland, The Trail, Ambinder, Top of the Ticket, On Politics, Huffington Post, Ezra Klein, Washington Independent, Pandagon, Kevin Drum, The Zoo, and Democracy Arsenal.

Download a PDF of this report HERE.

John McCain is often wrong but rarely in doubt. A review of his policy positions before and during the course of the Iraq war demonstrates that the senior senator from Arizona has tried desperately to square the facts on the ground with his theories of an “easy” victory. As the course of reality has proven his predictions wrong time and again, McCain has waffled, prevaricated, and dissembled about his true record. A review of McCain’s bad policy calls on Iraq follows:

PRE-WAR ASSESSMENT: ‘We Will Win It Easily’

“You know, when you say it won’t be difficult, whenever you send young Americans into harm’s way, it’s going to be difficult. And we will lose American lives. So that said, I believe that it will not be nearly as difficult as some allege.” [NBC, 9/22/02]

“Because I know that as successful as I believe we will be, and I believe that the success will be fairly easy, we will still lose some American young men or women.” [CNN,9/24/02]

“I think most Iraqis would greet the removal of Saddam Hussein with relief and pleasure.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

“We’re not going to get into house-to-house fighting in Baghdad. We may have to take out buildings, but we’re not going to have a bloodletting of trading American bodies for Iraqi bodies.” [CNN, 9/29/02]

“Our technology, particularly air-to-ground technology, is vastly improved. … I don’t think you’re going to have to see the scale of numbers of troops that we saw, nor the length of the buildup, obviously, that we had back in 1991.” [CNN, 12/9/02]

“If there is a success, and I predict there will be, that the countries in the region will breathe a sigh of relief because an individual who’s invaded neighboring countries is out of power, and perhaps people all over the Middle East will heave a sigh of relief and hope because — and fell a sensation of hope because we will instill a democracy in Iraq.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

“But the point is that, one, we will win this conflict. We will win it easily.” [MSNBC, 1/22/03]

“It’s going to send the message throughout the Middle East that democracy can take hold in the Middle East.” [Fox News, 2/21/03]

“I have no qualms about our strategic plans. … I thought we were very successful in Afghanistan.” [Hartford Courant, 3/5/03]

“When the people of Iraq are liberated, we will again have written another chapter in the glorious history of the United States of America.” [Senate Floor, 3/18/03]

“Proponents of containment claim that Iraq is in a box,” McCain said. “But it is a box with no lid, no bottom, and whose sides are falling out. . . . Containment failed yesterday in Iraq. Containment fails today. And containment will fail tomorrow. We would be placing hope before experience to think otherwise.” [Chicago Tribune, 2/14/03]

“I don’t think whether we invade Iraq or not will [cause] any diminution or increase in their zeal or efficiency to orchestrate an attack on the United States.” [National Journal, 2/15/03]

MATTHEWS: Are you one of those who holds up an optimistic view of the post-war scene? Do you believe that the people of Iraq or at least a large number of them will treat us as liberators? MCCAIN: Absolutely. Absolutely. [MSNBC, 3/12/03]

THE WAR BEGINS: ‘Iraqis Will Greet Us As Liberators’

“I believe [Iraqis] admire, respect and want to emulate the United States of America.” [CNBC, 3/19/03]

“But I believe, Katie, that the Iraqi people will greet us as liberators.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

“I think it’s unlikely house to house fighting in Baghdad, but I don’t think there are many Iraqi soldiers that would like to engage in that kind of activity.” [NBC, 3/20/03]

MATTHEWS: Do you think it’s working? Do you think we’ll shake them — shake them to the roots so they will give up eventually and avoid a huge bloodbath of people?

MCCAIN: I don’t know how long they’ll hang out. It doesn’t take a large number of people to cause difficulties in house to house fighting we’ve just seen that in southern Iraq. But there’s no doubt in my mind that we will prevail and there’s no doubt in my mind, once these people are gone, that we will be welcomed as liberators. These guys are the real bad guys and they’re telling everybody, we’re going to shoot you and so, of course, we’re not being welcomed cause they’ve got people that will kill them if they do. Once that’s done, I’m confident. [Hardball, 3/24/03]

“I believe that these people have the same yearnings for freedom and democracy and independence and self-determination that every person on Earth does, and once this Gestapo is off of their backs, then I think you will see great joy and pleasure that we were able to free them and that will not come until they are sure that they don’t have Saddam Hussein return again.” [NBC, 3/30/03]

“I think we may have underestimated the hatred that the Iraqi people felt for this regime and, and their desire for a democratic form of government and the fundamental liberties that we want all people to enjoy. So I think it may not be as difficult as some we, as some envisioned.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

“There’s not a history of clashes that are violent between Sunnis and Shiahs. So I think they can probably get along.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“And the Shiites have been repressed and oppressed for a long time. Some of this is a natural manifestation of their ability to express themselves.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“And second of all, there was this belief that somehow the, quote, ‘Arab street’ would rise up and there would be bloody demonstrations. None of those happened. And one of the reasons is because of the rapidity of the victory.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

“I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process. … But the conflict, the major conflict is over … The regime change is accomplished.” [Fox News, 6/11/03]

“Their morale could not be higher. This is a mission accomplished. They know how much influence Saddam Hussein had on the Iraqi people, how much more difficult it made to get their cooperation.” [This Week, ABC, 12/14/03]

MCCAIN BACKPEDALS: ‘I Never Believed It Was Going To Be [Easy]‘

“The difficulty, the job, the size of the challenge. Part of it is what you said, the Ba’athists, the whole situation was underestimated by the administration and, frankly, the military, as well.” [Hardball, 2/25/04]

“I think the initial phases of it were so spectacularly successful that it took us all by surprise.” [CBS, 10/31/04]

“I think that one of the many mistakes that have been made is to inflate the expectations of the American people beginning three years ago that this was going to be some kind of day at the beach, and I never believed it was going to be.” [NBC, 12/4/05]

“I do believe we were greeted as liberators in many respects in many parts of Iraq. We really were. I remember the statue coming down and people being freed from prisons, etc. But it was not only overly optimistic; it was wrong.” [NBC, 12/4/05]

“There was a gross misunderestimation of the challenge we faced in the post-conflict aspect of Iraq.” [NPR, 12/6/05]

“We never should have said ‘Mission Accomplished,’” McCain told me. “We never should have said ‘a few dead-enders.’ We never should have said ‘last throes.’ Part of it is our own making, by creating expectations which obviously didn’t come to fruition.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

MR. RUSSERT: Go back, Senator, to 2002 — the administration saying we’d be greeted as liberators, John McCain saying that you thought success would be fairly easy.
SEN. MCCAIN: It was.
MR. RUSSERT: In all honesty, hasn’t this…
SEN. MCCAIN: Well, it was easy. It was easy. I said we — a military operation would be easy. It was easy. We were greeted as liberators. [Meet the Press, 1/10/07]

“I have been saying for 3 1/2 years that we would be in this sad situation and this critical situation we are in today.” [South Carolina campaign stop, 2/20/07]

“For several years I and a number of others have bemoaned and complained and criticized and been saddened as we’ve watched this train wreck in Iraq.” [Senate Floor Speech on Casey Nomination]

MCCAIN ON IRAQ WMD: ‘I Am Confident We Will Find Those Weapons’

“There is no doubt as to his avid pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. That, coupled with his relations with terrorist organizations I think is a case that the administration will be making as we move step by step down this road… ” [Nightline, 11/28/01]

“[Saddam Hussein] has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the Earth multiple times. He has placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes, not hours, and has devolved authority to fire them to subordinates. He develops nuclear weapons with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage.” [Press Release, 10/10/02]

“Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon.” [Press Release, 10/10/02]

“I think that Blix’s report will be fairly definitive. But Mr. Blix has made a lot of reports over the years, and I think the judgment made by the United States of America will–and the president of the United States will prevail here.” [NBC, 2/12/03]

“I think we will find weapons of mass destruction. I think it’s important that we do.” [MSNBC, 4/23/03]

COSBY: Are you frustrated that we haven’t necessarily found weapons of mass destruction? We believe some of these mobile labs were used for that, but we haven’t found the actual WMD?

MCCAIN: I think all of us are to some degree frustrated. But to my mind, the overthrow of Saddam Hussein was justified by the evidence we have now about the brutality of his regime. I still believe we’ll find weapons of mass destruction because there was so much there in 1998, according to published reports. But of course we are frustrated and this gives ammunition to people who opposed our intervention in Iraq. [Fox News, 5/31/03]

“I am confident we will find those weapons because, look, he had them in the 80s, when he used it against his own people and others, he had them in 91 after the Gulf War, he had them in 98 — that was President Clinton s opinion and — as well as the inspectors opinion. I am — I am confident that we will find those weapons.” [ABC, 6/1/03]

“I’m satisfied that Saddam Hussein not only had weapons of mass destruction, but if we hadn’t overthrown him, he would have gone back to pursuing the development of weapons of mass destruction.” [CNN, 6/3/03] “I personally always believed that there was a chance of us finding weapons of mass destruction. Iraq is the size of the state of Texas.” [Fox News, 3/31/04]

MATTHEWS: But you were quoted as saying that, even if there hadn`t been any WMD there, you still think the war was worth it.
MCCAIN: I think we did the right thing, yes.
MATTHEWS: Even without a WMD case.
MCCAIN: Because — because I believe that Saddam Hussein, it is clear, had used weapons of mass destruction. If he had remained in power, he would have attempted to acquire and use them. And the sanctions were not working and were breaking down. The status quo was not prevailing in Iraq, yes. [MSNBC, 5/23/05]

“The fact is that anybody that says the President of the United States is lying about weapons of mass destruction is lying.” [Southern Republican Leadership Conference, 3/10/06]

DE-BAATHIFICATION: ‘We’ve Got To de-Baathize Iraq’ … I’m ‘Optimistic They Will Pass A Reverse de-Baathification Law’

“We’ve got to de-Baathize Iraq. We cannot allow the old regime people to come in to restore law and order. That would be a terrible betrayal of the Iraqi people.” [Fox News, 4/10/03]

“Now we are succeeding militarily. On the ground there is progress politically. There is the process of reconciliation. I think – I’m guardedly optimistic that they will pass a reverse de-baathification law through the Iraqi government.” [This Week, 11/25/07]

“In January, the Iraqi parliament passed the long-awaited de-Baathification law that restores the eligibility of thousands of former party members for government jobs lost because of their Baathist affiliation…these significant achievements come coupled with remaining challenges.” [Town Hall, 2/26/08]

PRO-CHALABI: ‘[Ahmed Chalabi] Is A Patriot’

MATTHEWS: Suppose [Saddam Hussein] thumbs his nose at us and says, “No way. I’m not letting those guys in,” or he starts pussy footing around about it. What do we do then? Do we — do you think an active war is then appropriate, an American attack or any kind of military campaign against him is appropriate, at that point?
MCCAIN: No. I would support the Iraqi National Congress. They have significant support, in my view, within Iraq. [MSNBC, 2/12/02]

“I would like to see support for the Iraqi National Congress and aid and assistance to elements both within and without — inside and outside of Iraq to accomplish.” [CNN, 3/3/02]

“[Ahmed Chalabi] is a patriot who has the best interests of his country at heart.” [Washington Post, 11/24/03]

VIETNAM: ‘Iraq Is Not Vietnam’ … ‘It Could Evolve Into Vietnam’

“I don’t believe that we would be in any conflict comparable to the Vietnam War.” [CNN, 9/24/02]

“Comparisons with Vietnam are grossly overdrawn.” [NBC, 10/19/03]

“Iraq is not Vietnam,” McCain said. But Vietnam holds “cautionary lessons.” [Newsweek, 11/17/03]

“We lost in Vietnam because we lost the will to fight, because we did not understand the nature of the war we were fighting, and because we limited the tools at our disposal.” [Newsweek, 11/17/03]

“It could evolve into Vietnam if we lose completely the support of the people.” [Charlie Rose, 4/19/04]

“We were able to walk away from Vietnam. If we walk away from Iraq, we’ll be back — possibly in a context of a wider war in the world’s most volatile region.” [ABC, 11/12/06]

EVOLVING VIEW OF DICK CHENEY: ‘One Of The Most Capable Vice Presidents’ … Bush Was ‘Very Badly Served’ By Cheney

“As Vice President Cheney has said of those who argue that containment and deterrence are working, the argument comes down to this: Yes, Saddam is as dangerous as we say he is.” [Center for Strategic and International Studies, 2/13/03]

“I think that Dick Cheney is a totally, completely thorough, honest man. A man of integrity. Unimpeachable integrity, in my view. And I’ve known him for more than 20 years.” [MSNBC, 10/15/03]

[On Cheney, at campaign rally for Bush in 2004]: “one of the most capable, experienced, intelligent and steady vice presidents this country has ever had.” Adopting one of the central selling points of the Bush campaign, McCain said that Cheney “is, in effect, deputy commander in chief in the greatest test of our generation . . . this long, tough fight to vanquish international terrorism.” [Washington Post, 7/17/04]

MR. GREGORY: Do you, do you have confidence in the president and his national security team to lead the war at this stage?
SEN. McCAIN: I do. I do. I have confidence in the president and I believe that he is well aware of the severity of the situation. [MTP, 8/20/06]

“The president listened too much to the Vice President . . . Of course, the president bears the ultimate responsibility, but he was very badly served by both the Vice President and, most of all, the Secretary of Defense.” [Politico, 1/24/07]

EVOLVING VIEW OF RUMSFELD: ‘He’s Done A Fine Job’ … ‘One Of The Worst Secretaries Of Defense In History’

“I believe he’s [Rumsfeld] done a fine job … He’s an honorable man.” [Fox News, 5/12/04]

AUDIENCE: My name is Sabah Elbardisi (sp) with Al Jazeera TV. Senator, Mr. Gephardt spoke on Sunday and said that Mr. Rumsfeld is not doing a good job, and he stopped short of calling for his resignation. He also said that the presidents cannot leave the responsibilities for their subordinates. Are you also calling for his resignation? Or what are you calling for?
McCAIN: No. I think there are certain things that happen with the elections; a president to select his team is certainly a part of that. I certainly would not advocate that. [The Council on Foreign Relations, 11/05/03]

Asked about his confidence in the secretary’s leadership, McCain recalled fielding a similar question a couple weeks ago. “I said no. My answer is still no. No confidence,” McCain said [MSNBC, 12/15/04]

McCain, speaking to The Associated Press in an hour-long interview Monday, said his comments were not a call for Rumsfeld’s resignation, explaining that President Bush “can have the team that he wants around him.” [MSNBC, 12/15/04]

“But the president has the right and earned the right as the president of the United States to appoint his team–and he has confidence in Secretary Rumsfeld. I will continue to work with Secretary Rumsfeld as much as I can as long as he is secretary of Defense. We have to, because we need to win this war.” [East Valley Tribune, 4/15/06]

“I think that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense in history.” [MSNBC, 2/19/07]

“I’m the only one that said that Rumsfeld had to go.” [Republican Presidential Debate, 1/30/08]

“He did not call for his resignation,” said the campaign’s Brian Rogers. “He always said that’s the president’s prerogative.” [The Trail, 2/13/08]

LENGTH OF CONFLICT: ‘The End Is Very Much In Sight’

“I think the victory will be rapid, within about three weeks because I think Saddam Hussein is very weak. And then I think you will find out more about these capabilities that we’ve been unable to uncover through the inspectors.” [MSNBC, 1/28/03]

“I believe that this conflict is still going to be relatively short.” [NBC, 3/30/03]

“It’s clear that the end is very much in sight.” [ABC, 4/9/03]

During an appearance on Fox News, host Neil Cavuto said, “many argue the conflict isn’t over.” McCain answered, “Well, then why was there a banner that said mission accomplished on the aircraft carrier? Look, the — I have said a long time that reconstruction of Iraq would be a long, long, difficult process, but the conflict — the major conflict is over, the regime change has been accomplished.” [FOX, Your World With Neil Cavuto, 6/11/03]

“Obviously we’re going to be in Iraq a lot longer than many had anticipated to start with. I thought it would be appropriate for us to find out the costs of the war, find out what these are and find out what the additional homeland security expenses are.” [CNBC, 5/23/03]

“We’ll still be there for security purposes. Listen, my friend, we’re going to be there for five or six years. A little straight talk. We’re going. We’re going to have to be there for quite a while.” [Hardball, 2/25/04]

“Let’s have some straight talk. Militarily, we’ll be there for years.” [Charlie Rose, 4/19/04]

“Because if you accept the reality that we’re going to be there for a long time — which, by the way, is not terrible if you keep the casualties down. We’ve been in Kosovo. We’ve been in Bosnia. We’ve been in South Korea for more than 50 years.” [Fox News, 9/19/04]

O’BRIEN: How much time will you give it?
MCCAIN: I’m not sure — I think one of the bad things about this, people are expecting immediate reaction. I’m sorry to tell you that I think casualties may go up in the short run, because they’re going to go into some tough neighborhoods. It’s going to be a number of months, perhaps before the end of this year, before we see some real signs of success. And then I’m not sure how quick we can withdraw. [CNN, 1/24/07]

ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?
MCCAIN: I don’t think so.
ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?
MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws. [Charlie Rose, 11/27/07]

Q: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for 50 years — (cut off by McCain)
MCCAIN: Make it a hundred.
Q: Is that … (cut off)
MCCAIN: We’ve been in South Korea … we’ve been in Japan for 60 years. We’ve been in South Korea 50 years or so. That would be fine with me. As long as Americans …
Q: [tries to say something]
MCCAIN: As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. That’s fine with me, I hope that would be fine with you, if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Queada is training and equipping and recruiting and motivating people every single day. [Mother Jones, 1/03/08]

“So, what I want to do today is take a little time to describe what I would hope to have achieved at the end of my first term as President…By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom. The Iraq War has been won.” [The Hotline, 5/15/08]

“You set a date for withdrawal, you set a date for defeat,” McCain said. “You tell the bad guys, ‘Hang on, we are leaving’ on a certain date.” [The Tribune, 3/16/07]

STAY THE COURSE: ‘We Cannot Leave Iraq’

“I was heartened to hear the President say that we cannot cut and run in Iraq.” [Press Release, 11/5/03]

“To announce withdrawals when the number of attacks and deaths of American military are going up is not reasonable or logical,” Mr. McCain said in an interview. “If the American military can’t do it, then certainly half-trained Iraqis cannot.” [NY Times, 11/14/03]

“I’m confident we’re on the right course. I’m confident that this is a very difficult and imperfect process, bringing democracy to countries that have never known democracy, fraught with secular differences as well as ethnic differences. It’s very, very difficult. But I am confident that an imperfect democracy is what we’ll get out of Iraq will be vastly superior to what the people of Iraq had prior to this.” [ABC News, 3/7/04]

“Is it the time to panic, to cut and run? Absolutely not.” [CNBC, 4/7/04]

“We have no choice but to win. We could leave Vietnam. We could leave Somalia. We could leave Beirut. We cannot leave Iraq.” [CNBC, 4/7/04]

“Leaving is not an option.” [Charlie Rose, 4/19/04]

“We should be together united trying to work out a common policy on how we can address Iraq.
Senator Kerry and the president say we have to stay the course. We have to stay the course. How do we do that best.” [CNN, 4/28/04]

“If we fail, if we cut and run, the results can be disastrous. We risk all-out civil war.” [CNNFN, 5/12/04]

“And we cannot cut-and-run. And I’m glad that 58 percent of the American people believe that we should stay the course, as well.” [Fox, 6/28/05]

“And what the president did tonight is the most important thing. He laid out an articulate vision for victory in Iraq and why we need to stay the course.” [Fox, 6/28/05]

“I think the situation on the ground is going to improve,” he says. “I do think that progress is being made in a lot of Iraq. Overall, I think a year from now, we will have made a fair amount of progress if we stay the course. If I thought we weren’t making progress, I’d be despondent.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

The idea of removing U.S. troops from Iraq, only to station them nearby, seems pointless. “To do what?” McCain asks. “I know of no military strategist who would tell you that that kind of arrangement would work.” [The Hill, 12/8/05]

COOPER: There seems to be so much focus now on drawing down troop levels in Iraq, even by the president. He made a point tonight in the speech saying, you know, that’s going to be done based on military necessity not on domestic politics. But are domestic policies driving military strategy right now in Iraq?
MCCAIN: I don’t believe so. I think the president is staying the course. And I do believe that he stated very clearly when he said troop withdrawals would be dictated by conditions on the ground. [CNN, 1/31/06]

Senior Strategist John Weaver: “It is stay-the-course, no matter what. And if it dooms McCain, so be it.” [Kansas City Star, 4/23/06]

“Most of the Americans, when you’re asked, “Do you want to set a date for withdrawal,” say no. Of course they’re frustrated. All of us are frustrated. I’ve expressed my frustrations to you this morning. But they are not ready to face the consequences of failure by setting a date certain for withdrawal, and I believe that, that they are largely, although frustrated, recognize the consequences of failure.” [MTP, 8/20/06]

“Americans are really kind of schizophrenic about this issue. … They’re frustrated, and they want us to get out, but if we ask the American people if we should set a certain date or a calendar, they agree with the president, and with me, and with Dan, that is a recipe for disaster. We have to have conditions on the ground that indicate we can withdraw.” [New York Sun, 9/10/06]

“I hate to use the phrase — ’stay the course,’ but I would rather use ‘prevail’ in Iraq, bring about a democracy, and a free society. [CBS, 9/24/06]

“Well, I think maybe I could call it McCain principle that when I vote to send young Americans into harm’s way and to carry out a mission that I’m committed to seeing that mission through. And to see that it succeeds. I don’t know what my other colleagues think when they also vote to send young Americans into harm’s way but I feel it’s a great responsibility.” ["Face the Nation," CBS News, 1/14/07]

“When I sign up, when I raise my hand and vote to go to war, that I want to see the completion of the mission.” [Washington Post, 1/13/07]

EVOLVING VIEW OF THE SURGE: ‘I Am Concerned About It, Whether It Is Sufficient Numbers Or Not’ … ‘I Believed The Surge Would Succeed’

“The simple truth is that we do not have sufficient forces in Iraq to meet our military objectives.” [GlobalSecurity.org, 11/05/03]

“Another 20,000 troops in Iraq, but that means expanding the Army and the Marine Corps.” [AP, 10/27/06]

“There are two keys to any surge of U.S. troops. To be of value the surge must be substantial and it must be sustained . . . We will need a large number of troops.” [MSNBC, 1/05/07]

“I am concerned about it, whether it is sufficient numbers or not. I would have liked to have seen more.” [MTP, 1/21/07]

“I am very nervous about this new strategy. I am very doubtful that we have enough troops. I don’t know if the Maliki government will be strong enough.” [Salon, 2/20/07]

“The new strategy and surge is succeeding. But I also warn you, if you forget everything I have mentioned, please remember this, Al Qaeda is on the run but not defeated.” [Town Hall Meeting in Exeter, New Hampshire, 3/1/08]

“A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq.” [McCain Campaign Website, 5/08]

“We have succeeded… And if we continue this strategy, we will win the war. We have succeeded. This strategy of the surge and everything that goes with it has succeeded. And those are the facts on the ground.” [CBS News, 7/18/08]

“I believed the surge would succeed because I knew the capabilities and culture of the United States military.” [National Guard Association, 9/21/08]

SUCCESS IS RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER: ‘We’re At A Critical Juncture’

“In the next few days, we’re at a critical juncture, though. If the war gets extended out, I think you’ll see criticism rise. If it goes well, you’ll see it disappear.” [LA Times, 4/2/03]

“What happens in the next few months? Time is not on our side. People in 125-degree heat with no electricity and no fuel are going to become angry in a big hurry. The sophistication of the attacks on U.S. and allied troops have increased. And what we do in the next several months will determine whether we’re in a very difficult situation or not, and there’s still time, but we’ve got to act quickly.” [Meet the Press, 10/24/03]

“If we do not meaningfully improve services and security in Iraq over the next few months, it may be too late.” [Press Release, 10/1/03]

“I think the next three to six months will determine how long we remain in Iraq.” [Boston Globe on CFR Speech, 11/6/03]

“We’ve got to get this issue resolved to the satisfaction of the American people so that we can focus all our attention on the enormous crisis that exists in Iraq today. We are in a very critical time.” [NPR, 5/7/04]

O’BRIEN: With the recent spate of violence, including two U.S. soldiers who were killed yesterday in an ambush, three Iraqis as you well know also killed, the beheading that we’ve been talking about in Iraq as well, do you think the violence there is getting worse?
MCCAIN: I think it’s probably going to escalate between now and the 30th and perhaps for a period afterwards. The terrorists know that this is a very critical time. If they can prevent a handover of the government from the United States military to this Iraqi government they will have achieved great success and there’s a lot at stake here in the next few weeks. [CNN, 6/23/04]

“I believe that Iraqi families want better lives for themselves. I think they yearn for freedom and democracy. And I’m very optimistic, guardedly optimistic that the Iraqi people sooner rather than later will start responding to these terrorists and that’s what they are, and the window now over the next two to three months is a critical time.” [CNN, 6/29/04]

“The next six months to a year are critical.” [AP, 1/28/06]

“I think that we’re in a pretty crucial phase.” [NBC, 3/17/06]

MR. GREGORY: You agree this is a critical moment in Iraq? SEN. McCAIN: I agree it’s a critical time, yes. [MTP, 8/20/06]

“I think that, first of all, things are very serious there. And to say otherwise I don’t think would be an accurate depiction of events, and this is a very critical time.” [CBS, 10/19/06]

“If you talk to most military experts, we’re in a critical and crucial time. We’re either going to lose this thing or win this thing within the next several months.” [MTP, 11/12/06]

MCCAIN TURNS HIS SIGHTS ON IRAN: Iranian Operatives ‘Taking al-Qaeda Into Iran’

“As you know, there are al Qaeda operatives that are taken back into Iran, given training as leaders, and they’re moving back into Iraq.” [Hugh Hewitt, 3/17/08]

Speaking to reporters in Amman, the Jordanian capital, McCain said he and two Senate colleagues traveling with him continue to be concerned about Iranian operatives “taking al-Qaeda into Iran, training them and sending them back.” [Washington Post, 3/18/08]

MCCAIN: Do you still view al Qaeda in Iraq as a major threat?
PETRAEUS: It is still a major threat, though it is certainly not as major a threat as it was say 15 months ago.
MCCAIN: Certainly not an obscure sect of the Shi’ites overall?
PETREAUS: No.
MCCAIN: Or Sunnis or anybody else. [Senate Foreign Relations Committee Hearing, 4/8/08]

CHENEY: Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. [3/16/03]

That same month — in March 2003 — McCain was parroting the Bush administration’s rosy talk, repeating on many occasions that “we will be greeted as liberators.” Cheney and the administration ignored numerous pre-war intelligence analyses which warned “that the U.S. would face armed resistance from Iraqis following the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime.”

After the war began and an insurgency took hold in Iraq, the two cheerleaders of the Iraq invasion attempted to argue that they had been proven right – that the U.S. was greeted as liberators in Iraq. In Sept. 2003, Cheney told Tim Russert that “we have” been welcomed by “most Iraqis.” And following Cheney’s lead once again, McCain said in Jan. 2007, “We were greeted as liberators,” adding that the Iraq war was “easy.”

Watch a compilation of McCain and Cheney’s remarks:

Digg It!

What could not be found on Bush’s schedule was one Saudi dissident or political activist, much less a democrat. Just a day after his speech in Abu Dhabi–and two years after declaring in his second inaugural address that “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture”–the president made time for a tour of Saudi Arabia’s National History Museum but not for a meeting with Fouad al-Farhan. Farhan, Saudi Arabia’s most popular blogger, was arrested in Jidda last month for daring to defend a group of Saudis who wanted to form a civil rights group.

Hirsh writes, “Don’t plan a major democracy speech when you know you’re not going to act on it, with not even a symbolic move of any kind to accompany it. There’s a word for this kind of thing. It’s called hypocrisy.”

Mr. Buffett said that in the last 20 years, tax laws have allowed the “superrich” to become richer.

“Tax law changes have benefited this group, including me, in a huge way,” he said. “During that time the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic scale: he’s been on a treadmill while the superrich have been on a spaceship.”

Less than 1 percent of the nation’s super-rich pay the estate tax. “For this year, individual estates valued at more than $2 million are taxed at a top rate of 45 percent.” Buffet — who pays the estate tax — argued, “A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy.”

This weekend on Bloomberg Television, right-wing pundit Bob Novak fumed over Buffett’s altruistic testimony, attacking him as a hypocrite who “should be ashamed of himself for putting out that phony message.” Bloomberg’s Al Hunt responded, “Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.” Watch it:

Transcript:

HUNT: Warren Buffett came out this week for keeping the estate tax. Were you impressed by that selflessness?

NOVAK: Well that’s ridiculous. He’s going to protect himself and his heirs. That is the biggest hypocrisy in the world. And people who like high taxes just latch onto him. But he should be ashamed of himself by putting out that phony message.

HUNT: Bob, there’s only two differences between you and Warren Buffett: $40 billion and a conscience.

NOVAK: I have a conscience?

Gates, on a Middle East tour, called for a range of efforts from inside and outside Iraq to speed up the formation of a broad-based government of Iraq’s majority Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish factions.

….”The debate in Congress…has been helpful in demonstrating to the Iraqis that American patience is limited,” Gates told Pentagon reporters traveling with him in Jordan. “The strong feelings expressed in the Congress about the timetable probably has had a positive impact…in terms of communicating to the Iraqis that this is not an open-ended commitment.”

Gate’s argument contradicts President Bush’s claim that timelines “send the wrong message to the Iraqis,” and prove al Qaeda’s accusations that America is “weak,” “corrupt,” and “can’t stand it.”

Artificial timetable for withdrawal send the wrong message to the Iraqis, they’re seeing it’s not worth it. There’s a lot of Iraqis over there determined — trying to make up their mind whether they want to be a part of democracy, or whether or not they’re going to take to the hills and see what happens. Artificial timetable for withdrawal, an early withdrawal before this finishes sends the message to the enemy, we were right about America. That’s what they said. Al Qaeda has said it’s just a matter of time before America withdraws. They’re weak, they’re corrupt, they can’t stand it, and they’ll withdraw. And all that would do is confirm what the enemy thinks.

Likewise, Vice President Cheney said last week:

It is impossible to argue that an unconditional timetable for retreat could serve the security interests of the United States or our friends in the region. Instead, it sends a message to our enemies that the calendar is their friend, that all they have to do is wait us out — wait for the date certain, and then claim victory the day after.

Such hypocrisy isn’t confined to the Bush administration. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who regularly maligns timelines as a “date certain for surrender,” admitted he used those very calls for redeployment to “motivate the Maliki government” during a dinner last month with Prime Minister Maliki.

Our strategy is far from “stay the course.” The president continually challenges all of us to learn from experience, adapt to change and improve our performance.

But in June 2005 on the Charlie Rose Show, Hadley described the Bush strategy as “stay the course” and urged the American public to support it:

What the Americans need to understand and what we need to explain to them clearly is that we do have a strategy. That strategy is making progress. But there are still difficult days ahead. But if we can stay the course, if we can pursue our support for the Iraqi people, if they continue to perform the way — the way they are performing, we will not only build a democratic Iraq, but it will be a democratic Iraq that will send a message of hope to the region as a whole, to encourage the spread of democracy in the region as a whole.

It’s not just Hadley. As ThinkProgress has documented on video, other administration officials have repeatedly used “stay the course” in the past. Despite the White House efforts to “cut and run” from “stay the course,” the truth won’t let them.

It’s time for Democrats who distrust President Bush to acknowledge that he will be the commander in chief for three more critical years and that in matters of war we undermine presidential credibility at our nation’s peril.

But when he was running for President, Lieberman directly questioned Bush’s credibility on the war. In fact, he argued that doing so was an essential part of our democracy. Lieberman, 7/28/03:

In our democracy, a president does not rule, he governs. He remains always answerable to us, the people. And right now, the president’s conduct of our foreign policy is giving the country too many reasons to question his leadership. It’s not just about 16 words in a speech, it is about distorting intelligence and diminishing credibility. It’s not about searching for scapegoats; it’s about seeing, as President Kennedy did after the Bay of Pigs, that presidents stand tall when they willingly accept responsibility for mistakes made while they are in charge. [Press Conference with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT) Re: War in Iraq, 7/28/03]

When he was running for President, Lieberman questioned Bush’s credibility on the war because that’s what he needed to do to get votes. Now, after his campaign flopped, he is attacking people who question Bush’s credibility on the war because that’s what he needs to do to get attention.

For Lieberman, this is about political opportunism, not principle.

UPDATE: Atrios finds another example of Joe’s hypocrisy.

The best way to secure this country in the long run, though, is to spread democracy and freedom. We believe everybody deserves to be free. We believe everybody has a deep desire in their heart to live in a free society.

President Bush, 8/2/05:

On behalf of the United States, I congratulate my friend, King Abdallah bin Abd al-Aziz Al Saud, on assuming the Saudi throne and the position of Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. We wish Saudi Arabia peace and prosperity under his leadership. I have spoken today to the new King, and the United States looks forward to continuing the close partnership between our two countries.

If Bush is for democracy everywhere, why does he hope Saudi Arabia prospers under a monarchy?

“But I was asked about the Egyptian elections, and I said, we expect for the Egyptian political process to be open and that for people to be given a chance to express themselves in an open way, in a free way. And we reject any violence toward those who express their dissension with the government. I’m pretty confident I said that with President Abbas standing here, maybe not quite as articulately as just then.”

Actually, this is the supposedly “firm stance” to which President Bush is referring:

“I also embraced President Mubarak’s first steps and said that those first steps must include people’s ability to have access to TV, and candidates ought to be allowed to run freely in an election and that there ought to be international monitors. That’s — and the idea of people expressing themselves in opposition in government, then getting a beating, is not our view of how a democracy ought to work. It’s not the way that you have free elections. People ought to be allowed to express themselves, and I’m hopeful that the President will have open elections that everybody can have trust in.”

See how all the tough talk disappears when it’s time to actually start talking about the situation in Egypt? Instead, the President toes the line — describing what would be an ideal election process — instead of facing reality. Meanwhile, the run-up to elections in Egypt have turned out to be extremely violent and decidely unfree.

There, on the far left, is our energy secretary, Samuel Bodman, all smiles. Next to him stands the murderous Uzbek tyrant Islam Karimov, who just two weeks ago ordered Tiananmen-style massacres of hundreds of his own citizens, and has since refused to even allow an international investigation of the matter. We’d offer our view on Karimov, but the conservative Economist magazine sums it up well:

Even on the most self-interested calculus, the reality is that Mr Karimov is an ally the West is better off without. His help in the war against terror is outweighed by the encouragement he has given to radicals of every stripe in Central Asia and beyond, and by the damage that association with him does to the West’s reputation. … Nor is Uzbekistan of real strategic importance any more. With bases in Kirgizstan and Afghanistan, America hardly needs Khanabad, the base for which it pays Mr Karimov handsomely. He should now be made a pariah, his regime stripped of all forms of aid, and all military assistance withdrawn.

Posing with them is Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev. Just a few days prior to this photo, which was taken last Wednesday, “Azerbaijani police beat pro-democracy demonstrators with truncheons when opposition parties, yelling ‘free elections,’ defied the government’s ban on protests against [Aliyev].”

So why is everyone so happy? They’re celebrating the opening of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, a project certain to enrich and strengthen these repressive regimes. At the ceremony, Bodman read a letter from President Bush lauding the “visionary leadership” of President Aliyev, and offering “congratulations to the people of Azerbaijan” for the pipeline, since they’ll surely see so much of the profits. Uh-huh.

In at least one way, though, this photo is useful. Just print it out and keep it in your wallet, so the next time someone asks why pro-democracy activists around the world no longer see us as a beacon of hope, you can whip it out and save your breath.

Here are some glowing words for Mr. Karimov:

“I was recently in a meeting with the President, with a central Asian leader, with Karimov, in which he said to him, yes, I appreciate what you’ve done in the war on terrorism, this is terrific.” — then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice

“It’s a great pleasure to have an opportunity to spend time with someone with both a very keen intellect and a deep passion about the improvement of the life of the people of this country.” — former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill

Worse, the abuse isn’t limited to foreign regimes. Sgt. Erik Saar, a soldier who spent three months in the interrogation rooms at Guantanamo Bay, told CBS’ 60 Minutes this week that the approach of U.S. military interrogators is “ineffective” and “inconsistent with American values.” According to Saar and a series of FBI e-mails obtained by CBS, abusive methods and sexual humiliation are used routinely in Gitmo. Saar describes a female interrogator smearing fake menstrual blood on the face of a Saudi detainee, then depriving him of water so he could not ritually clean himself and pray that night. The FBI e-mails confirm Saar’s accounts.

At the heart of the scandal is a 2001 lawsuit over the city’s construction of a hospital access road on disputed land in Mexico City. Rival political parties PRI and President Fox’s own PAN are uniting against the popular mayor, who currently leads in the polls. Their effort (despite the fact that many Mexicans feel the case to be a minor infraction) attempts to strip Lopez Obrador of the immunity from prosecution he maintains as a public official. Taking away Lopez Obrador’s immunity would bar him from running for further office, since Mexican law states that politicians cannot run for office if under indictment, unlike his majority leader neighbor to the north.

If the Bush administration is so serious about promoting democracy abroad, how can it ignore such flagrant abuse of power by the Mexican Chamber of Deputies? President Bush’s Inaugural Address spoke of his desire to support democracy whenever and wherever necessary; however, unless you are from the Ukraine or Central Asia, such promises are for naught.

- Jay Heidbrink

The very next day, in the UK Independent, we learned that the Saudi government had executed six men “without sentence,” bringing “the total [number of executions] so far this year to 40, more than the country’s 33 executions in the whole of 2004.”

And today, respected Saudi Arabia analyst John Bradley writes that the Saudi regime…

…is not giving up power or changing its historically repressive domestic policies in the face of opposition, but – more predictably – closing ranks and reasserting its totalitarian rule. Emboldened by its success in the domestic “war on terror”, which got under way only after their rule was directly threatened, the al-Saud is flexing its other muscles so that the masses, too, are left in no doubt that it is back in total control.

The Bush administration’s reaction: a call for the Saudis to commit to basic human rights principles? A stern diplomatic admonition?

How about a prized invitation to President Bush’s Texas ranch for Saudi crown prince Abdullah Ibn Abdul Aziz.

The only man who has dared to challenge Hosni Mubarak for the presidency [Ayman Nour] was charged Tuesday with forging signatures to win approval for his party — an escalation in the government’s confrontation with the most prominent figure in Egypt’s fledgling reform movement.

Are the charges legit? You be the judge: “Fifty such papers were necessary. Nour received thousands, which have been in government hands for months.” And this isn’t the first time Mubarak’s government has harrassed Nour. In January, he “was called before Parliament and stripped of immunity [in Egypt, members of the parliament are generally immune from prosecution] on 30 minutes’ notice, with no chance to mount a defense.” Officials “dragged him down the street, then put him in a police van in the middle of Cairo’s busiest square, apparently as an example to the public.”

Surely, the White House must be outraged — or maybe not. Yesterday, the L.A. Times asked Secretary Rice specifically about the Nour situation. Describing her response as “uncritical” would be an understatement. Here’s a taste: “The president always said … that this process of democratization will happen, at a pace that is different in different societies. But in many ways, a sophisticated, great culture like Egypt, he has said, could lead in this regard, much as they’ve led in the search for peace by signing the peace treaty with Israel. So we’re watching, we’re encouraged and we’re encouraging the Egyptians to make these real reforms.”

Two years later and with a new Secretary of State, the Bush administration claims to still regard Zimbabwe as an “outpost of tyranny” to which the “United States must help bring freedom.” Now a recent report by the Human Rights Watch documents “a climate of fear and intimidation” in the run up to “next week’s parliamentary elections in Zimbabwe.”

So will President Bush live up to the promises of his inaugural address and his rhetorical commitment to democracy? Will Secretary Rice publicly stand by the Zimbabwe people as she did with the Iraqis? If over two months ago Secretary Rice was ready to declare the time for diplomacy as now, will the Bush administration finally stop their four years of dallying and put pressure on the Southern African Development Community to really bring a semblance of democracy to Zimbabwe?

Or when Africa cries freedom, does the Bush administration just stay silent?