June 16, 2003
Democrats Divided Over How To Sink Party
Debate Is Whether To Offer Lukewarm Disagreement Or Simply Mimick Republican Position
Democrats, members of the "opposition" party, are engaged today in a disagreement about how to ensure their parties failure in upcoming national elections. The crux of today's debate centers upon how to characterize blatant untruths told by George W. Bush about Iraqi weapons possession during the national "debate" on whether to invade Iraq. Should they be called "lies"? Or should Democrats say, as Senator Hillary Clinton urged, that "serious questions have been raised that need to be answered." Another position backed by Senators Edwards, Kerry and Lieberman was that lying for political gain is perfectly acceptable, as long as it's for a good cause, or on a weekday.
A highly placed anonymous source in the Democratic Party (Terry McAuliffe, head of the DNC) said, in a panicky voice, "What if we say he was lying about WMD and then he finds some? What are we gonna do then? What are we gonna do?"
Only a few, like Sen. Bob Graham, who keeps diaries noting where he scratches himself each day, assert that Americans might be interested in knowing that President Bush induced them to back a war on the basis of completely fabricated notions he reported in State of the Union speeches as cold, hard facts.
While Democrats were wrestling over the issue of whether to point out that Bush told Americans that Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium to make nuclear bombs when it was well known that this never occurred, Bush raised another $50 million in campaign funds.
Or at least, that's what he says.
Posted by Tom Burka at 8:41 AM