Casting his opponents as pro war is a tactic that will work against Dean

[bigtree]

. . . especially now that Congress is back. You see, a sizable number voted as Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards did. For the war resolution. They are a bit miffed at the governor for labeling them as pro-war because of their vote. Many made that decision with the best of intentions for their country and almost all of them feel they were duped by this president and his cabal of spooks with 'detailed' presentations of large stashes of chemical and biological weaponry, and nuclear capabilities that Saddam was poised to release upon the region and the world.

Powell went before the U.N. with the same presentation and the world was misled. Most Americans initially supported the war. A majority polled still give the president high marks for his handling of foreign policy. Therefore, most Americans were misled by this administration.

My point is that these folks who supported the war vote - who rightfully expected the president to tell the truth when committing our men and women to war - are not stupid or inept. They were betrayed by this president, who launched a premeditated assault on Iraq, outside of any mandate from Congress or the American people; outside of any mandate from the international body whose 1441 resolution forms the basis for Bush's justification for war.

Most Americans who initally believed the president aren't going to accept any blame for Bush's betrayal. They will, more likely, recognize the explanations of those in Congress who voted to believe the president as kin to their own ambivalent support at the time. They share the sense of betrayal.

The 'Blame the Democrats First' strategy that Gov. Dean and others have employed will alienate those who stood with Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards at the time. To brand Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards as inept is a slap at the majority of Americans who agreed with their vote. It will become harder and harder for Gov. Dean to win over these folks the more he ramps up his know-it-all, anti-war rhetoric.

Gov. Dean feels that in his opposition to the invasion, that he was smarter than the majority of Americans. Good for him. Don't be surprised though, as those of us who weren't as smart as the governor, unite behind someone who may be more understanding of the betrayed trust we reluctantly, tragically, placed in the president's word.

[edzontar]

1. Excuse me, but they VOTED FOR IT!!!!!

nt

[molly]

2. They voted to force him to go to the UN to AVOID

an all out assault. It is very misleading to say they voted FOR a war - it almost sounds like they were beating the war drums and that is far from true.

[Old and In the Way]

12. That vote was engineered precisely to nuetralize our best

candidates. Vote "for" giving Bush authority to back the UN inspections with force, IF necessary, or vote "against" and be smeared as pro-Saddam appeaser. Since I'm a LIHOPer, I think this administration was hoping for a straight Democratic no note.....then another 'event' would have absolutely taken us out of the 2004 election because we would have been branded as the Party that facilitates the terrorists. Call me cynical.

[NNN0LHI]

20. That is exactly what happened in 2002

Why do so many here fall for it? I can't figure it out. Many were here with us as it was happening. Do they have short memories or do they think we do? Something don't seem right.

Don

[dreissig]

33. Beating the Drums

Handing madman George Bush a blank check to do whatever he felt like is certainly beating the drums for war. I remember what happened! Bush made up phony stories about Iraq and used them to blackmail politicians into supporting the war. If someone of Kerry's stature had shown some real courage, the war might have been delayed, or changed into something less destructive.

But Kerry showed no courage at all. He looked out for himself!

[bigtree]

3. A majority of Americans supported that vote at that time

based on the presentation from this administration.

A majority of Americans did not support unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation. The authority to commit our forces did not originate with that resolution. The president could have used the same authority that presidents have exercised for decades to commit our forces without congressional approval. The resolution, which was remarkably similar to the resolution that Gov. Dean supported, was an attempt to reign the president in and force him back to the U.N. and to get inspectors back on the ground.

Indeed, if no resolution had been passed, the president wouldn't have had to go back to the U.N. for the snub that he recieved at his plans for immediate invasion. He would have simply moved foward without Congress and without the last ditch effort by the inspection team. The vote didn't mandate immediate invasion. It was to forstall immediate invasion. Bush arrogantly moved foward and abused his authority.

[dreissig]

40. A Majority of Americans . . .

Some of the things that a majority of Americans believe would astound you. I'm not sure that more than half can tell you the difference between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. A few years ago a survey found that Americans confused Governor Mario Cuomo with crooner Perry Como.

There was a reason Bush sounded like he was talking to children in the State of the Union speech. Pelosi and Daschle followed with the same sing-song tone in their own speeches. These are the political leaders of our times, guys. When they talk down to us like they were instructing a five-year old, there might be a reason.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

8. I hope Dean keeps up the same tactics that failed him in Iowa.

Keep hammering at Kerry for voting for the resolution, please.

[dreissig]

34. Good Idea

I like the idea of not letting people forget that John Kerry's "nuanced" position was really a Yes or No vote on a specific issue. Given the choice between giving Bush a blank check or withholding it, Kerry voted to give him the blank check. That doesn't show a sensitivity to nuances as much as it shows caving in to avoid opposing an easy, popular war.

I think you have a great idea! I don't want to see Kerry get away with voting for the war. Shout it from the rooftops!

[blm]

4. If Bush had implemented IWR properly, there would be no war.

Bottom line.

[dreissig]

35. If Democrats Had Shown Any Courage . . .

If Democrats had shown any courage, there would have been a partisan odor to the entire venture. That may not have stopped Bush, but it might have persuaded him to scale back the venture or delay it. Is there a tradeoff in lives between Kerry's lack of fortitude and what might have happened if he'd shown some courage? I couldn't speculate on the number, but there probably is.

[sandnsea]

5. It took the focus off Bush

That's what most Democrat see. And Howard is using the war for his own political gain because his words about the war don't add up. People see that too. We need someone who can take on Bush and move us forward now. That's what people will vote for.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Dean did the unthinkable. He told the truth.

"My point is that these folks who supported the war vote - who rightfully expected the president to tell the truth when committing our men and women to war - are not stupid or inept."

Glad to see you admit it. Kerry and Edwards have been trying to tell us that they are stupid and inept when they pathetically try to cover their tracks in voting to back the war. "Bush deceived me." Yet, bush failed to deceive 23 other senators and most of the rest of the world.

They voted for the war to further their own ambitions and political careers...at the cost of thousands of lives.

[bigtree]

7. That's the tactic I speak of

Repeating the lie that Sen. Kerry and Sen. Edwards backed the war.

They no more backed unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation than the majority of Americans did who supported their vote at the time. The vote was not presented as a vote to immediately proceed to war; not even by its most ardent supporters. The decision to drop all diplomatic efforts and invade took place after the inspectors were on the ground and making some progress. Saddam was the only opponent that I can recall that actually was destroying missiles prior to invasion. That was a result of the war resolution, which was backed up the U.N. resolution with the threat of U.S. force.

Bush is the actor in this who took us far beyond the mandate of Congress, the American people, and the world community. Foisting the blame on those who sought to reign him in is sophistry. Good luck, though.

[HFishbine]

10. If that were true

Then there would be a public record of the dems who voted for the war standing up in early 2003 critisizing Bush, right?

There must be speeches where these pro IWR lawmakers stood up and said, "Wait a minute, this isn't what we authorized. This isn't what we expected. Hold on Bush, you're going about this all wrong." Right?

The "evidence" for Powells UN presentation was debunked within days of its presentation here on DU. Surely those who were "mislead" didn't have their heads in the sand. Surely they got the e-mails, letters, and faxes from constituents who were pointing out the falacies. Surely they were aware of the book by Will Pitt and Scott Ritter. Surely they stood up in mid February and said, "Wait a minute, I'm not sure about this intelligence." Right?

I've seen one John Kerry speech from January 2003 where he was crtical of Bush's weak attempts to build international support. He stopped short of calling for Bush to wait for an invasion though. As far as I'm aware (please, somebody inform me if I'm wrong) Edwards made no such criticisms.

The war dogs were sprinting toward their eventual end and nobody was complaining about the lack of a UN sanction or that they had been mislead by what was revealed before the war to be faulty "intelligence."

If it's true that none of the dems who voted for the war favored "unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation" then why didn't they try to stop it BEFORE it happened?

[bigtree]

11. Kerry did. But don't let that stop you from your crusade against him

Another 'anti-war' candidate:

Adam Nagourney
New York Times, September 19, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=162&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=83eeec5a53e0f522216b34ad0dcd2f43

[HFishbine]

15. Huh? You've totaly confused me.

You say "Kerry did" but cite a piece about Clark.

You say that I have a crusade against "him" but I'm not sure to whom you are referring.

[bigtree]

19. Kerry did oppose Bush's push to war

but what are you arguing? That he could have stopped Bush? I argue that his vote was designed to reign Bush in. Bush was bent on war and would have gone regardless of the concerns of some in Congress who would have been further marginalized without the resolution which required Bush to go to the U.N. Bush did go, but turned on his heel when it looked like they would reject him. The whole effort there, and in Congress, was a sham act to cover for his original intention to invade; quite apart from his public declarations.

You expect quite a lot from one senator. I argue that he was true to his own stated aim of ending the regime of Saddam with international help. The resolution vote was a reflection of that intention to remove Saddam within a responsible framework. Sen. Kerry was consistent in that. He never advocated immediate invasion and occupation. He argued for the opposite, effective he thought, with his resolution vote.

Apart from that he could have voted against the resolution, but I don't believe that 'no' vote would have stopped Bush, put inspectors on the ground, or forced Saddam into a retreat which began with him destroying missiles to forstall invasion.

[HFishbine]

21. "You expect quite a lot from one senator."

Well, there was one ex-governor who was speaking out. I guess that's why Kerry remains my second choice.

[bigtree]

23. His statements prior to invasion sound a lot like Sen. Kerry's

Speaker: Mr. Howard Dean
Statement on the President's Decision to Send U.S. Military Troops into War Against Iraq

Date: 03/17/2003

Tonight, for better or worse, America is poised on the brink of war. Tonight, every American, regardless of party, devoutly supports the safety and success of our men and women in the field. Those of us who, over the past six months, have expressed deep concerns about this President's management of the crisis, mistreatment of our allies and misconstruction of international law, have never been in doubt about the evil of Saddam Hussein or the necessity of removing his weapons of mass destruction.

Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam "unsuitable, immoral and intolerable."

This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced --this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003657&keyword=&phrase=&contain=


Statement of Senator John Kerry Regarding President Bush's Announcement on Iraq
Date: 03/18/2003

I find myself angered, saddened and dismayed by the situation in which this nation finds itself tonight. As the world's sole superpower in an increasingly hostile and dangerous world, our government's obligation to protect the security of the United States and the law abiding nations of the world could not be more clear, particularly in the aftermath of September 11.

Yet the Administration's handling of the run up to war with Iraq could not possibly have been more inept or self-defeating. President Bush has clumsily and arrogantly squandered the post 9/11 support and goodwill of the entire civilized world in a manner that will make the jobs ahead of us -- both the military defeat and the rebuilding of Iraq -- decidedly more expensive in every sense of that word.

The Administration's indifference to diplomacy and the manner in which it has treated friend and foe alike over the past several months have left this country with vastly reduced influence throughout the world, made impossible the assembly of a broad, multinational effort against Saddam Hussein, and dramatically increased the costs of fulfilling our legitimate security obligations at home and around the world. At home, the Administration has given too short shrift to the needs of homeland security, ignoring the advice of their own experts, doing the job on the fly and on the cheap. To this administration, homeland security is a fine political weapon, but not high enough a priority to force a reassessment of their tax cuts to the rich and the special interests.

My strong personal preference would have been for the Administration -- like the Administration of George Bush, Sr. -- to have given diplomacy more time, more commitment, a real chance of success. In my estimation, giving the world thirty additional days for additional real multilateral coalition building -- a real summit, not a five hour flyby with most of the world's powers excluded -- would have been prudent and no impediment to our military situation, an assessment with which our top military brass apparently agree. Unfortunately, that is an option that has been disregarded by President Bush.

http://www.vote-smart.org/speech_detail.php?speech_id=M000003667&keyword=&phrase=&contain=

[HFishbine]

30. Dean, Kerry Edwards

Indeed, Kerry expresses his objections on the eve of war -- better than nothing, especially when compared to John Edwards who, on February 6, 2003 was saying:

"I think <President Bush> is doing the right thing"

http://www.aeipoliticalcorner.org/WS%20Articles/ws030222.pdf

Compare that to Kerry's words above and Dean's below (Feb. 25, 2003) and one sees a notable distinction.
--------



FMR. GOV. HOWARD DEAN: Sure. I think there's a high threshold for a unilateral attack, and the United States has traditionally set the moral tone for foreign policy in the world. My view of this is since Iraq is not an imminent danger to the United States, the United States should not unilaterally attack Iraq. Iraq does not have nuclear weapons. They do not have much of a nuclear program, if they have one at all left. And they have not... there is not any particular evidence that is convincing that they have given weapons of mass destruction to terrorists. All those three things would constitute, in my view, a reason to defend our country by unilaterally attacking. But those are not the cases. Sec. Powell and the president have not made those cases well.

We believe... I believe that Iraq does have chemical and biological weapons, and they are a threat to many nations in the region, but not to the United States. Therefore in my view, the United States ought not to attack unilaterally. The United Nations should disarm Saddam, and we should be a part of that effort. The risk for us to unilaterally attack Iraq is that other nations will adopt our policy, and I can very easily see perhaps the Chinese saying one day, "well, Taiwan presents an imminent threat, and therefore we have the right to attack Taiwan." What we do matters, and morals matter in foreign policy.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/jan-june03/dean_2-25.html

[isbister]

13. John Kerry speech

"Let me be clear: I am voting to give this authority to the President for one reason and one reason only: to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction if we cannot accomplish that objective through new tough weapons inspections. In giving the President this authority, I expect him to fulfill the commitments he has made to the American people in recent days - to work with the United Nations Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out "tough, immediate" inspections requirements and to "act with our allies at our side" if we have to disarm Saddam Hussein by force.

If he fails to do so, I will be the first to speak out. If we do go to war with Iraq, it is imperative that we do so in concert with others in the international community. The Administration has come to recognize this as has our closet ally, Prime Minister Tony Blair in Britain. The Administration may not be in the habit of building coalitions, but that is what they need to do - and it is what can be done. If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region and breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots - and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed. Let there be no doubt or confusion as to where I stand: I will support a multilateral effort to disarm Iraq by force, if we have exhausted all other options. But I cannot - and will not - support a unilateral, US war against Iraq unless the threat is imminent and no multilateral effort is possible."

John Kerry, US Senate, October 09, 2002

[sangha]

14. A simple request

Please stop confusing people with the facts! :-)

[HFishbine]

16. Well, yes

This and Kerry's January speech (which I don't have a link to) are the reaons that I find Kerry palatable on this issue. (He is my second choice, for other reasons as well.) I'm still dissapointed though that he wasn't more forceful in his opposition as the war approached under circumstances that Kerry warned against.

[isbister]

27. Foreign Policy Speech at Georgetown University

January 23, 2003
Georgetown University, Washington, DC

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[beaconess]

29. Edwards in October 2002

Seems like both Edwards and Kerry are getting smeared:

"As I've said before, I believe the Iraqi threat demands action by the U.S. together with our allies if the United Nations Security Council is prevented from acting to enforce its own resolutions. But I also believe that this is a very good example of how American leadership in the world will produce a better result than American disregard . . .

"We must make a genuine commitment to help build a democratic Iraq after the fall of Saddam. And let's be clear: a genuine commitment means a real commitment of time, resources, and yes, leadership. Democracy will not spring up by itself or overnight in a multi-ethnic, complicated, society that has suffered under one repressive regime after another for generations. The Iraqi people deserve and need our help to rebuild their lives and to create a prosperous, thriving, open society. All Iraqis — including Sunnis, Shia and Kurds — deserve to be represented.

"This is not just a moral imperative. It is a security imperative. It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. And such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.

"We know that military planning is in high gear, and that's good; but democracy planning needs to be in high gear as well. For example, we should be asking NATO now to start planning for a post-conflict peacekeeping role, and we need to start consulting with others now about sharing the financial burden of reconstruction . . . We must lead our allies to greater collaboration, we must lead our friends to greater vigilance, we must lead our partners to greater participation – and we must lead problem states into adherence with the international agreements and programs to prevent proliferation."

[bigtree]

31. And they have some rather distinguished company in the Senate

who will work against the, I-told-you so, I'm the only anti-war candidate because I didn't vote for the war, candidate.

Their argument will prevail: That they voted the way they did because Bush lied to them. And it mirrors the majority of American's ambivalent support of the resolution at the time of the vote. Most Americans can understand the betrayal of their trust by Bush.

Those who didn't have a vote can and have been critical of others who had that task. Cheap shot though, from outside of that area of responsibility.

[dreissig]

37. Doubletalk

Kerry's an experienced politician who knows how to cover his tracks. But the IWR resolution was simple and binary: shall George Bush get a blank check to wage war against a sovereign country? John Kerry voted Yes.

He really can't duck out of it now. The question was put to him in stark Yes or No terms, and Kerry answered Yes.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

17. "Mr. President, do not rush to war."

But the burden is also clearly on the Bush Administration to do the hard work of building a broad coalition at the U.N. and the necessary work of educating America about the rationale for war.

As I have said frequently and repeat here today, the United States should never go to war because it wants to, the United States should go to war because we have to. And we don't have to until we have exhausted the remedies available, built legitimacy and earned the consent of the American people, absent, of course, an imminent threat requiring urgent action.

The Administration must pass this test. I believe they must take the time to do the hard work of diplomacy. They must do a better job of making their case to the American people and to the world.

I have no doubt of the outcome of war itself should it be necessary. We will win. But what matters is not just what we win but what we lose. We need to make certain that we have not unnecessarily twisted so many arms, created so many reluctant partners, abused the trust of Congress, or strained so many relations, that the longer term and more immediate vital war on terror is made more difficult. And we should be particularly concerned that we do not go alone or essentially alone if we can avoid it, because the complications and costs of post-war Iraq would be far better managed and shared with United Nation's participation. And, while American security must never be ceded to any institution or to another institution's decision, I say to the President, show respect for the process of international diplomacy because it is not only right, it can make America stronger - and show the world some appropriate patience in building a genuine coalition. Mr. President, do not rush to war.
--John Kerry Jan. 23, 2003
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_0123.html

[isbister]

26. Wouldn't it be nice if we could get a few of the talking heads on tv

to read that speech? (not that it'd make a difference)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. They voted FOR the war.

The lame excuse that they "mistakenly" trusted Bush is just that. A lame excuse. 23 other senators, facing the same pressure, the same polls, resisted the effort to bulldoze them into backing the war. Edwards and Kerry caved and rolled over for bush and the PNAC. Claiming that supposedly experienced and intelligent senators didn't know that bush was going to war and using their votes to back it is pathetic.

Why anyone would want either of these two sellouts who claim to be ignoramuses in defense of their votes is beyond me.

[bigtree]

28. They were going to be bulldozed into war with or without the resolution

The resolution was an attempt to reign the president in, and it almost worked. Inspectors were allowed back in Iraq because of the threat of force implied in the resolution. At that point we had the full support of the world community. Nothing in the republican-controlled Congress, save a filibuster in the Senate, would have forestalled war. There wasn't enough republican support for the Democratic alternative favored by Gov. Dean for it to pass. I mean, a war vote was inevitable. The 'authority' that Gov. Dean complains that some Democrats supposedly gave to the president was also in the bill that he supported. All the president would have to do in that alternative bill was write a letter to Congress saying that he had exhausted all diplomatic means. Nothing in that alternative would have prevented the president from acting as he did. Nothing in the final resolution mandated unilateral, preemptive invasion. Indeed, the legislation was designed to prevent that. Unfortunately, that intent was disregarded by President Bush.

He's the ignoramus. :P

[dreissig]

36. Two Sellouts

The IWR vote was nowhere near as nuanced and complicated as Kerry's apologists are now claiming. Everybody at the time knew the case for war was a phony. Kerry, an experienced politician, talked out both sides of his mouth on the issue. He dutifully expressed skepticism, but then he voted for the war. Hillary did the same thing, and she's another one I'll never vote for.

I'm disappointed that Kerry isn't gone already. Still, it's encouraging that sellout Dick Gephardt's political career came to a dismal end. I wish the same humiliating outcome for John Kerry, the Senator Who Was Taken In.

[sangha]

9. I strongly disagree

Casting his opponents as pro war is a tactic that HAS ALREADY worked against Dean

[goodhue]

18. The anti-war issue is not last October's vote . . .

It's the ongoing occupation!

http://kucinich.us/statements.htm#DemsRisk

Kucinich: Dems Risk Forfeiting Election Over Iraq Occupation

"The Democrats forfeited a chance to regain the House in 2002 because party leaders supported this war," said Kucinich. "We will forfeit the White House this year if we take the same path. Voters will not turn out for a Democrat unless the Democrats offer an alternative to the Republican agenda. All of the other candidates in the Iowa Caucuses are forfeiting to Bush the debate on what should be the central issue of this campaign. Bush wants to leave our troops in Iraq for years, and so do they.

"US military casualties in Iraq have now exceeded 500, and the media has begun comparing the figure to the number of US dead in Vietnam in 1965 prior to the significant expansion of US operations there. We are out $155 billion already with hundreds of billions at stake if we stay in.

"Other Democrats join the Bush Administration in explaining that 'We can't cut and run.' I say we can't continue the damage we are causing and cannot begin repairing it until we withdraw our occupying army. We must pay for what we destroyed. We must pay reparations to the families of innocent civilians we killed and injured. But we must work through the United Nations. We must allow the United Nations to facilitate the creation of a democratic government that will be acceptable to the Iraqi people. No government created by the United States will be. It is better that we recognize this now than after the next 500 deaths."

[bigtree]

22. No candidate has endorsed the occupation.

U.N. in U.S out? That's what Sen. Kerry wants, I believe. Not U.S. completely out; but U.N. in nonetheless to, "lessen the sense of American occupation."

[George_Bonanza]

24. Yes, Kerry has said that an international effort needs to mold Iraq

So it doesn't become the imprint of American policies.

[Zech Marquis]

32. Bingo!

Senator Kerry and General Clark have seen war in person, had bullets lfy and hit them and/or their fellow GIs in battle. Both have seen good people get seriously wounded, maimed, and killed..and I do trust that Kerry and the others did not expect fo the war to be thrown into play so quickly (and carelessly), and they sure as hell didn't expect the missing WMDs to become a running joke.

the BFEE sent those 500 GIs and countles Iraqis to their deaths. All of those wounded GIS waiting for treatment were sent by Rummy and Unca Dick's oil lust and Halliburton enriching schemes. They used the whole country and the world for their evil deeds. Kerry, Edwards, and Clark aren't the cause. * is.

[dreissig]

38. We're Not Fooled

It's 1968 all over again and Hubert Humphrey realizes that he needs votes from the antiwar Left. So the Happy Warrior invents a story about how he had to say that Vietnam was glorious but he didn't really mean it, y'see.

It didn't wash. The antiwar Left wasn't taken in back then, and it won't be taken in now. We were out on the streets in bitter cold protesting the war Bush wanted, and John Kerry voted for it. Don't bother trying to tell me it didn't happen.

[shoopnyc123]

39. Dahling that man...

..I think at this point is not concerned with winning. He IS concerned with changing business as usual. Right now, even if he GOES DOWN, he will not lose his integrity.