Um... Congressman Walberg?



Transcript

Walberg: Did not Saddam Hussein have the weapons of mass destruction?

Schauer: No!

Walberg: You disagree with even the...

Schauer: Do you contend that he did?

Walberg: Oh absolutely he did. In fact...

Moderator: What evidence has the government found of WMDs in Iraq since we went in?

Walberg: Oh, they didn't find it once they went in, but there's clear evidence that they were shipped other places or maybe still buried in the desert. The Hamilton Commission found that out...

[Moderator?]: Did we find them?

Walberg: No, we didn't find 'em.

Hm. So, Saddam Hussein did have weapons of mass destruction, it's just that they're hidden so well that even after five years, we haven't found any. The Iraqi government was able to hide them quickly, in the midst of preparations for an invasion, without leaving any traces or having any witnesses that were able to give credible accounts to the Americans searching for the weapons.

Right.

I'm not an expert on this, but thankfully, there are some people that have spent a lot of time on this. For instance, the Iraq Survey Group, which was convened by coalition governments specifically to search for stockpiles or evidence of stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, had this to say:

The former Regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD after sanctions. Neither was there an identifiable group of WMD policy makers or planners separate from Saddam. Instead, his lieutenants understood WMD revival was his goal from their long association with Saddam and his infrequent, but firm, verbal comments and directions to them.

and this:

ISG has not found evidence that Saddam Husayn possessed WMD stocks in 2003, but the available evidence from its investigation—including detainee interviews and document exploitation—leaves open the possibility that some weapons existed in Iraq although not of a militarily significant capability. Several senior officers asserted that if Saddam had WMD available when the 2003 war began, he would have used them to avoid being overrun by Coalition forces.

[...]

Senior military officers and former Regime officials were uncertain about the existence of WMD during the sanctions period and the lead up to Operation Iraqi Freedom because Saddam sent mixed messages. Early on, Saddam sought to foster the impression with his generals that Iraq could resist a Coalition ground attack using WMD. Then, in a series of meetings in late 2002, Saddam appears to have reversed course and advised various groups of senior officers and officials that Iraq in fact did not have WMD. His admissions persuaded top commanders that they really would have to fight the United States without recourse to WMD. In March 2003, Saddam created further confusion when he implied to his ministers and senior officers that he had some kind of secret weapon.

In other words, Saddam Hussein really, really wanted weapons of mass destruction, liked to brag about them, but didn't actually have any. He was a deluded, aging dictator, not a serious threat.

And what about Tim Walberg's idea that the weapons might have been moved or buried? In an addendum to the final report, it was concluded that it was possible, but very unlikely.

Again, I have to ask, if there were these massive stockpiles, how is it that no one witnessed their movements across the border? I don't know, Congressman Walberg, this is straying into conspiracy-theory land. Next you're going to tell me that black helicopters from the UN are out to get you.

But wait, Congressman Walberg said that the "Hamilton Commission" found out that the weapons were buried in the desert. So he's right... right?

No. He's referring to the Iraq Study Group (not to be confused with the Iraq Survey Group above), which was a bipartisan panel, chaired by Lee Hamilton (a Democrat) and James Baker (a Republican), and which released its final report in December of 2006. Except, they weren't tasked with investigating weapons of mass destruction. They were instead asked to find a path out of the mess we had created in Iraq.

In fact, in their final report, the phrase "weapons of mass destruction" only appears once, in the biography of one of the commission members. As far as I can tell, the report never discusses the truth behind claims about weapons stockpiles, nor does it address what might have happened to those stockpiles, if they had existed.

Frankly, I haven't got any idea what Walberg is referring to. If anyone can enlighten me, I'll gladly post an update.

It's possible-- possible-- that Tim Walberg could be right, and a couple of dozen of Iraqi nuclear bombs are hidden in the desert, or in Syria, or something like that. Maybe, in some crazy, unbelievable way, that all managed to happen without us ever finding any evidence. Hey, anything can happen.

But that's not what Tim Walberg said. He didn't say, "Well, who knows, maybe it's possible that they were there!" No. He was sure that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He mocked Mark Schauer for denying that known fact. It was ridiculous to suggest that Saddam Hussein didn't have weapons of mass destruction, and everyone knows that they're just hidden really well.

And yet, there's absolutely no evidence to support that. It's all conjecture and wishful thinking. When presented with evidence that the weapons of mass destruction weren't there, he continues on, living in his fantasy world.

We should be used to that by now. It's the same Walberg fantasy world where Iraq is as safe as Detroit, the Chinese are drilling off of the coast of Florida, Hurricane Katrina didn't cause any damage, Iraq was behind September 11, and global climate change isn't real.

This isn't funny anymore.

Labels: 2008 Election, Debates, Iraq, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg

At last night's debate in Adrian, Congressman Tim Walberg and state Senator Mark Schauer talked about privatizing Social Security. Here's what happened, via the Jackson Citizen Patriot's Chris Gautz:

They also clashed over Social Security, with Schauer saying Walberg supports privatization.

"No I don't," Walberg said.

Schauer then offered to read Walberg his statement to CitPat reporter Holly Klaft in expressing his support for private accounts.

Schauer said Walberg's plan is dangerous and that "Social Security is not in crisis."

and Holly Klaft:

Schauer said the first-term congressman's plan to fix the nation's Social Security system by creating private accounts would be ``devastating.''

Walberg said there is no effort at this time to privatize Social Security.

He has said he would support giving future workers the option of putting part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

And, finally, the Schauer campaign has this quote:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

Now, I haven't gotten my hands on any audio from the debate (yet), so I can't give you the unfiltered exchange. But let's suppose that this is all that happened.

For starters, when it says:

He has said he would support giving future workers the option of putting part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

Well, Congressman Walberg, that is privatization of Social Security. At least, that's the sort of plan generally accepted as privatizing Social Security. People get into trouble by relying on Wikipedia too much, but the article on this debate, while not the best, has a decent explanation of what "personal accounts" means-- namely, that individuals could take money they pay into the Social Security system and invest it in stocks and bonds.

So, Congressman Walberg, when this happened:

They also clashed over Social Security, with Schauer saying Walberg supports privatization.

"No I don't," Walberg said.

And this:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

Well, you weren't exactly being honest. And then this:

Walberg said there is no effort at this time to privatize Social Security.

That's basically true. No one's really been pushing that idea lately. It basically died in 2005, due to lack of support and a lack of political capital for President Bush. But that didn't stop Tim Walberg from supporting it in 2006, so much so that he put it on his website:

Tim supports President Bush’s efforts to expand our ownership society by allowing younger workers to voluntarily invest a portion of their payroll taxes and allowing the money to be secured in personal investment accounts.

And in 2004, he also put on his website:

Tim Walberg believes Social Security benefits must be protected and younger workers should have the option of investing a portion of their payroll taxes in stocks, bonds, or money market funds. Under this reform, younger workers will earn a higher rate of return and likely retire with far more funds than under the current system.

Those claims are a little dubious, but that's beside the point-- in 2004 and 2006, Walberg was clearly on the record as supporting privatizing Social Security.

And then, in September, from the Detroit News:

Walberg, R-Tipton, supports changing the program so younger workers could choose to invest a portion of their Social Security money in private investment accounts.

And this from the Citizen Patriot the next day:

Kennelly, who is president of the National Committee To Preserve Social Security and Medicare, which endorsed Schauer in his bid for Congress, said lawmakers should avoid looking to privatization as a solution.

Privatization would put Social Security money seniors rely on into private accounts that are at the mercy of the market, she said.

She said many Social Security recipients get a little more than $1,000 per month.

Schauer said Social Security is an efficient system that must be preserved. He has said he would oppose any efforts to privatize it and would work to make sure Social Security is available for the long term.

Walberg said he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts.

My point, of course, is to say that yes, Congressman Walberg, you do support privatizing Social Security. You didn't call it that, but Holly Klaft equated your plan with privatization, and we didn't hear any calls for a retraction. And just a few days ago, Chris Gautz made the same connection between "privatization" and the Walberg plan:

Also in the ad, it points out Walberg's support of "privatization," which is another way of saying he supports giving future workers the option of saving part of their payroll taxes in personal accounts. Of course those accounts could be subject to the whims of the market, and especially this week, might not be the most popular idea.

So, Congressman, when you said:

"I have never taken a position to privatize Social Security."

well, that was just a lie. You have taken a position in favor of privatizing Social Security. The only thing you haven't done is used the magical word "privatize."

Needless to say, the Schauer campaign is jumping on this (and rightly so):
Come on, Congressman Walberg. If you really, honestly, truly believe that privatizing Social Security is the right thing to do, then say so and do it honestly. Defend your ideas for what they are. Right now, you're trying to have it both ways, and when people call you out on it, you lie. That's not acceptable.

Labels: 2008 Election, Debates, Issues, Mark Schauer, Social Security, Tim Walberg

Major candidates for two offices are expected Oct. 7 for a broadcast debate
in Adrian, and the public is invited to attend the 7:30 p.m. event at Siena
Heights University’s Francoeur Theater.

The debate includes the Democratic and Republican candidates for both the
Michigan 57th House District and the U.S. House of Representatives
7th Congressional District, according to Anne Jameson, president of the local
American Association of University Women. The group is sponsoring the debate
along with WLEN radio and The Daily Telegram.

From 8:30 to 9:15 p.m., the U.S. House candidates will discuss issues. They are
incumbent Tim Walberg, R-Tipton; and challenger Mark Schauer, a Democrat from
Bedford Township in Calhoun County.

(Emphasis added.)

This is the first debate I've heard about so far, though it's possible that I missed others. This looks like the same debate I attended in 2006, though I won't be able to attend this year (unfortunately).

A notable change-- only Congressman Walberg and Senator Schauer will be present. The minor party candidates included last time will not be included. It'll make the debate a little less exciting, but it will also allow for a clearer contrast between Walberg and Schauer, and should have a quicker pace than the one in 2006.

Unfortunately, WLEN doesn't stream audio over their website, and I'm eager to get more than just the Telegram's article on it after the fact. If you think you can attend and would be able to provide either video or audio of the event, please contact me.

Labels: Debates, Issues, Mark Schauer, Tim Walberg