Any Democrat who trusted this fool

[Carolina]

and ceded warmaking power to him doesn't deserve to be President.

Are y'all watching MTP which BTW was taped yesterday so idiot boy's gaffes could be scrubbed? Bush is such an obvious liar, repeated mantra, bullshit... How any Democrat with a single functioning neuron could have bought into anything this buffoon presented is beyond me.

Flame me, but Kerry and Edwards, the team I once (~3/2002) thought was the Democrats dream team for 2004, showed the absolutely worst judgment by voting to give this man ANYTHING. He exudes deceit. And their defense of him and his actions -- they doth protest too much NOW after Howard Dean fired them up -- is inexcusable.

Yeah, yeah, I'll vote for either come November. What friggin' choice do I have. But I have no enthusiasm about it and worse, I think we'll LOSE.

[asjr]

1. This is unbelievable.

We all knew he is stupid. But this hour with Russert will help convince the rest of the nation. It is pathetic. Anyone who still backs him is stupid also.

[NV1962]

2. You'll vote for neither, because plenty Dems will see through 'em - n/t

[ClintonTyree]

3. I don't share...........

your pessimism about losing in November. I think the American people have had enough of this squatter.
I do believe your assessment of Kerry and Edwards is on the money though. They showed extremely poor judgment in abetting Bush in his quest to destroy democracy.
I too will vote for anyone but Bush, my heart won't be behind a Kerry/Edwards ticket, but they're the only alternative. Four more years of Bush would seal America's fate.

[asthmaticeog]

4. I'm afraid I agree

100%, but there's not a lot that can be done. Mainstream Dem voters are really responding to Kerry. Hopefully the big popularity bump he got from his Iowa success will fade and another candidate will rise to pose a real challenge, but thus far the only one with a chance at that is Dean, about whom I'm also not so crazy. On the other hand, Dean has shown an ability to energize fence-sitters, which is what it'll take to win, and which is the quality Kerry definitely lacks, to my way of seeing things. A ticket led by Kerry could be a setup not only for a humiliating defeat, but also an electoral validation of PNAC.

So MTP is that bad, eh? It's not showing here for another half hour.

[Eurobabe]

5. have faith

a small dog would be elected over this moron who is gaffing and bumbling his way on MTP.

[NNN0LHI]

6. Bush had a +90% approval rating just a couple of years ago

Must have been a lot of foolish Dems around in those days?

Don

[Jackpine Radical]

8. "Approval" isn't synbonymous with "re-elect."

As in "Yessir, Mr. Ashcroft, sir. I approve of da Pretzeldent a hunnerdenten percent."

[Carolina]

18. yeah but they weren't

running for president AGAINST him. Polled people have repeatedly demonstrated that they believe what Bush and his media lapdogs tell them.

I'm taking about our would-be leaders. With their access -- and especially for Kerry with his knowledge of Iran-Contra, BCCI and the fact that this misadministration consists of the same cabal -- they should have done their homework, fulfilled their Constitutional duty and denied Bush a blank check.

Then the blood and waste would solely be on his hands!

[BeyondGeography]

7. Millions of people were against IWR

They flooded the fucking streets, for crying out loud. And most of our party was too worried about the mid-terms and their political futures to dig in and do the right thing.

Who was our Robin Cook? Who gave the defining speech against IWR? Sen. Robert Byrd, that's who. An 85-year-old man with Parkinsons. And God bless you, Sen. Byrd, for all that you still do.

But your post brings back a lot of awful memories. You have framed the issue in a totally appropriate manner: By the fall of 2002, when it was clear that Bush never did anything for any other reason than personal political gain, when Andrew Card was on the record explaining the timing of IWR by saying "you don't roll out a new product in August", how could anyone trust this man?

Kerry, Edwards, et al STILL rolled over and voted for Bush's war. Our primary voters apparently don't think this is a big issue. We'll see how BushCo uses this against them in the fall. This isn't settled.

[NNN0LHI]

9. Do you think that if every Dem had voted against IWR...

...that Bush would not have invaded Iraq?

Don

[Iverson]

10. red herring

It still would have been the right thing to do.

Political cowardice just isn't admirable.

[NNN0LHI]

11. Yo

Answer the question. Would Bush had still invaded Iraq?

Don

[Meldread]

13. Let me get Miss Cleo on the phone to find out...

We don't know what would have happened if things had gone differently. What we *DO* know is that had Democrats stood their ground and voted no on the Iraq War Kerry and Edwards would have a much more favorable view today.

Kerry's excuses don't cut it. If the best he can come up with is 'I didn't know' -- then he shouldn't be President. Why? Because Millions of everyday Americans knew. His excuse is BS. Edwards to my knowledge still stands by his supporting the Iraq War.

[NNN0LHI]

14. I don't need to use your sources such as Miss Cleo to figure this out

Because I know he would have. Bush didn't station a quarter of a million soldiers around Iraq because he was not sure what he was going to do already. If you need Miss Cleo to figure that out stay out of poker games.

Don

[edzontar]

41. This matters not. Kerry and JE voted YES and thus are accountable

For what transpired in THEIR NAME.

No amount of sophistry can erase that fact of history.

[edzontar]

39. This is a false question....they could have stood against it, and they

Did not.

Shame.

[MidwestMomma]

54. I stood against it in my personal life and was ostracized at work

I took my lumps for what I believed in, they didn't. It's as simple as that to me. As a private citizen, I voiced my disappoval of the beginning of the rush to war and I paid a price. Kerry and Edwards were not willing to pay the political price of opposing a popular president. Now I'm supposed to put the IWR vote in the increasing column of 'it doesn't matter, we just have to beat Bush' issues and get in line.

[HFishbine]

43. Every dem?

No. Bush wouldn't have invaded. He wouldn't have risked launching a republican war.

[Iverson]

46. yoyo

I did answer, just not with your set of assumptions and preferences.

Think about the implications of the warrant that you seek to harp on. Assume that Bush would have invaded no matter what; helping him along acquires no moral currency, none at all. It acquires the opposite.

[bigtree]

53. Is opposing Bush enough? Is that their only responsibility?

My view and my aim is that Bush should be held completely responsible for pushing us into war. From his phony 1441 presentation to his phony briefings which exagerated the threat from Iraq. I don't see the value in allowing Bush to hide behind a congressional resolution that sought to stifle his manufactured mandate.

Congress is the lever. The hold the purse strings. But if Bush can disregard their mandate with impunity then what good is there in holding Congress accountable? Did the president even read the resolution?

Nothing in there says drop the U.N. and invade. It says the opposite. And he stepped around them.

I am defending John Kerry in this because he gave an informed (misinformed) rational for his vote. Maybe I wouldn't have made that vote. I don't know what lies the administration put before the U.N. and Congress. I do know that John Kerry opposed what the president ultimately did, before and after the vote. He didn't hide behind clipped rhetoric. He was effusive in his complaints. He was clear in his opposition to unilateral invasion and occupation.

I was also opposed to the president's actions; before the vote and at the U.N with Powell's phony presentation (I couldn't believe they bought that load.) I anguished over the vote which threatened to wipe out the Senate Democrats because Bush had taken them to the edge of the mid-term elections.

I listened to the debate. I thought Biden-Lugar and Byrd's outright rejection of Bush's open-ended first draft was superior to the final vote. But I listened to John Kerry's admonitions in his floor speech. He said that he would personally hold the president accountable if he exceeded the restraint implied in the bill.


From John Kerry's Floor Speech Before The Vote:

"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."
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html


His presidential bid is a natural extention of his promise. He has been consistent in his aim to remove Saddam with international support. He has deeper knowledge than I as to the true nature of the threat posed. Sen. Kerry is no stranger to the debate over our support of Saddam's regime and the corrupting violence proliferated by Hussein. He voted for the Iraq Liberation Act supported by Clinton which called for regime change. He has been consistent in his concern for the secirity of the region and for the potential transfer of bio or chem weapons by an unchecked Iraq. His IWR vote was an extention of that concern.

Congress can act, but the president holds ultimate responsibility to follow the mandate of the people as expressed by their representatives. Congress didn't give Bush permission for his preconcieved invasion. They acted in accordance with their obligations under the Constitution and the War Powers Act and did not give a blank check.

Congress doesn't seem to have the will to collectively stop this war, even in the face of the evidence that Bush inflated the threat. Two massive funding bills have ratified our mostly unilateral occupation there. I must note that my candidate voted against the $87 billion.

I think this fish rots at the head. Bush must go. John Kerry is consistent in seeking the presidency to ensure that the will of Congress, the American people, and the concerns of the international community are not disregarded in the future.

[BeyondGeography]

12. What does our party stand for?

Bush was going anyway, but that's not the point.

Our El Foldo on IWR was all part of the limp Daschle-Gephardt opposition. We like to legislate, so we'll cut deals with the Devil just to get our signatures on a bill. That explains No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act and other "compromises." The Republicans operate under the assumption that "bipartisanship is date rape." With this White House, that is clearly true.

On IWR, the Democrats were petrified they'd be labelled soft on terrorism for the mid-terms, which they were anyway, even though only 23 Senators voted against the resolution. They were going to lose no matter what they did. In the post-9/11 environment, Bush knew all he had to do was make Saddam into the baddest bogeyman on the planet, and the Murkans would get behind him. The only honorable thing to do was stand on principle against this mis-direction play, take your licks and wait for history's inevitable vindication.

The UN's inspectors had total near total access to weapons sites and they found nothing. People all over the intelligence community were complaining about the Office of Special Plans and the Bush Administration's obvious desire to let policy dictate intelligence. Longer term, the thought that we would be welcomed as liberators by the Iraqi people, who have rejected outsiders for centuries, never had the slightest shred of logic. This thing had disaster written all over it from the get-go.

[NNN0LHI]

15. Didn't watching Dean teach you anything?

Being against IWR and those who voted for it was Deans main platform. Where did that get him?

Don

[BeyondGeography]

17. What does Dean have to do with it?

Dean's candidacy is shot, Dean was anti-IWR, ergo being anti-IWR is politically unwise.

Try again.

[Nashyra]

16. If the Dems had voted against * to go to war

there is probably a better than not chance he would not have gone because they knew that the intelligence was shaky. With so much of the world adamant against going they could have stood together. But wait then they might have lost mid term elections oh wait they did. If the Dems had stood firm *'s re elect numbers would be in the toilet along with many of the Repukes in the house and the senate. We would not only be looking at the WH but perhaps the House and Senate majority, but the Dem party is very short sighted and sorry Kerry supporters but this electability issue about Kerry is the same thing, Clark is not perfect but is a candidate that once he is in the media garners respect. He's been on the scene 5 mos and though he has not polled ahead of * he is with in the margin of error, and the WH has nothing on him, if they tried to use the "Repuke" line if how he supported them, that would only bring more swing and moderate voters. Oh there is a mandate and it is to get rid of Clark

[Carolina]

20. thanks

:hi: That's exactly what I cannot get past. WE KNEW it was a fraud. Why didn't they? Kerry and Edwards did the politically calculating thing. So now they are as culpable as Bush which is why I gag when I listen to Kerry's anti-war hype now. Hearing him talk just now following VA Governor Mark Warner's endorsement about Bush's changing motives on the war just boils my blood.

[bigtree]

57. The U.N. inspectors were allowed back into Iraq

because of the threat of U.S. force implied in the resolution.

They were push out prematurely by Bush's disregarding of the provisions in the resolution that mandated against unilateral, preemptive invasion.

[krkaufman]

61. No such provisions

There were *NO* provisions in the IWR mandating against unilateral, preemptive invasion. In fact, invasion was left up to Bush with few/nil preconditions: invade if you think there's a threat that diplomacy won't resolve, and if you feel there's a link to terrorism.

All the conditions Kerry boasts of from his pre-vote speech...?? NONE of them are in the IWR... yet he voted for it anyway.

As for the "threat of force"... agreed, that did indeed help get inspectors back in. But that could have been done without actually authorizing force. This is exactly what Clark testified to... a resolution threatening force, but not authorizing war; require the Pres to come back again for authorization, to insure that preconditions have been met.

Poodles Kerry and Edwards (along with Gephardt, Lieberman,...) all rolled over.

[bigtree]

19. I didn't hear you castigate Tom Harkin who endorsed Dean. He voted yea.

Did Howard fire him up?

[NNN0LHI]

21. Shhhh. We ain't supposed to know that n/t

[Nashyra]

23. All the Dems that voted for this war

are responsible, if more had lost their seats in the house and senate and the new Repuke majority would have passed the resolution to go to war they would be soley responsible for the mess. The time for the commission on WMD's was before the war not after 530 men and women were killed. Saddam had been contained, he would have continued to be contained until after we caught bin laden. We need a Washington outsider.

[edzontar]

44. I agree. And no War-Dem will get my vote as long as one who

opposed it remains on the ballot.

[Carolina]

22. non-issue

Tom Harkin is NOT running for president. The first line of my post is that anyone who ceded warmaking power to Bush does not DESERVE TO BE PRESIDENT. So I'm talking about those candidates who would seek to lead the party now who quite literally rolled over for a fool. And they did so on more than Iraq.

BTW, I am totally opposed to all these pols endorsing any nominee before all the pimary voters have the opportunity to cast a vote. Frankly I think Gore may have hurt Dean and it's apparent Harkin didn't help.

[Terwilliger]

25. What is this....Dean-lash?

What did the original posters comments have to do with Dean? Why do others in this thread seek to castigate Dean when the question is between Bush and the people who enabled him?

I know that not voting for the idiots who approved Bush's warmongering includes your selection, but at least Dean didn't actually VOTE for the Chimpenator.

[bigtree]

31. The poster wrote:

"they doth protest too much NOW after Howard Dean fired them up"

[Terwilliger]

38. Whether you like it or not, Dean fired everybody up

especially Kerry

[bigtree]

24. General Clark didn't object to the IWR yea vote

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.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm


Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate? Record Shows Clark Cheered Iraq War as "Right Call"

Hearing Clark talking to CNN's Paula Zahn (7/16/03), it would be understandable to think he was an opponent of the war. "From the beginning, I have had my doubts about this mission, Paula," he said. "And I have shared them previously on CNN." But a review of his statements before, during and after the war reveals that Clark has taken a range of positions-- from expressing doubts about diplomatic and military strategies early on, to celebrating the U.S. "victory" in a column declaring that George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt" (London Times, 4/10/03. http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm

Months before the invasion, Clark's opinion piece in Time magazine (10/14/02) was aptly headlined "Let's Wait to Attack," a counter-argument to another piece headlined "No, Let's Not Waste Any Time." Before the war, Clark was concerned that the U.S. had an insufficient number of troops, a faulty battle strategy and a lack of international support.

>>>

After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."

Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

http://www.commondreams.org/news2003/0916-10.htm

[Terwilliger]

26. but he didn't actually vote for it

Kerry and Edwards did

[Carolina]

28. touche, Terwilliger

:toast:

[bigtree]

29. You hold John Kerry to every word

As do most of his critics here. Yet you let the other candidates, who didn't have responsibility for the vote, talk out of both sides of their mouths.

Both Wes Clark and Howard Dean were in the catbird seat. Cherry-picking popular legislation and throwing stones in opposition. It's easier to label Dean's anti-war position as craven, considering his stated support for a similar bill (Biden-Lugar) which would have give similar guidance to Bush on Iraq.

Bush disregarded all of the restraint counseled in the legislation. He would have likely disregarded the restraint intended in the alternative supported by Gov. Dean. If that legislation had passed Bush could still have committed our forces and proceeded to war.

If the alternative had passed and Bush had proceeded to war, would Dean be culpable? That's the question. What would have been different if the alternative that Gov. Dean supported had become law and then been disregarded by Bush? The governor would be no more complicit in the Bush's abuse of authority than Congress.

The 'Blame The Democrats First' strategy will backfire. Foisting the blame on Democrats takes the responsibility off of Bush. He's the one who pushed foward with unilateral, preemptive war.


". . . like a circus horse, she was constantly shouting these silly questions at him. "Are you lifting the oxcart out of the ditch? Are you tearing up the pea patch? Are you hollering down the rain barrel? Are you scraping around the bottom of the pickle barrel? Are you sitting in the catbird seat?"- James Thurber

[Terwilliger]

34. Bush's responsibility doesn'tr change

Democrats responsibility to be the proper opposition to a madman IS my main focus...if they can't do it I have to believe that they would fail in other areas as well

[Nashyra]

30. The point is the media and the party

appointing the candidate for us. The candidates, all of them should be getting the same support from the "Dem Party" *'s numbers are falling and the candidates do not have to be brutal with each other to keep the message about * being such a dimson. But the fact that a candidate like clark,or others, or a comeback by Dean is destructive is presumptive and is shortsighted....business as usual. The media is not shortchanging Clark by themselves, the powers that be are definetly helping. My opinion.. Clark is just as dangerous to the status quo in the Dem camp as well as in the Repuke camp....We really can't mean it when we want to get rid of special interest, only the Repuke special interest. Clark and Dean I believe are the ones that could turn DC upside down and no one wants that, the Dems in power positions just wany to shift the power base, not give it back to the American people. That's what Clark and Dean want to do.

[blm]

27. That's as bogus against Kerry and Edwards as when Clark was being accused

of praising Bush on his resolve to go to war.

I kept what Clark was saying in context and expect Clark supporters to acknowledge that the IWR in October 2002 was not to blame, but Bush's failure to execute it properly in March 2003 is to blame.

[BeyondGeography]

32. Execute it properly?

Bush's first act as President was to reject the Kyoto Accord. This was followed by a renunciation of the ABM treaty. Proclamations that you were either with us or against us after 9/11. He was a unilateralist from the start.

"Executing IWR properly," from the standpoint of the Dems who voted for it, meant giving the UN inspection teams all the time they needed to complete their work, working with the leaders of Europe to build a true coalition, and acknowledging the role that public opinion plays in helping those leaders sell their support for the war to their voters. Does any of this sound like Bush?

What was it in Bush's first two years that could lead any reasonable person to conclude that he would "execute it properly"?

[bigtree]

48. What guarantee do we have that any elected official will follow the Law

When Congress passes a resolution that mandates seeking swift action by the U.N. security council before proceeding, and proscribes working with the international community until it is determined that 'reliance on diplomatic of peaceful means alone" would not force Saddam's hand, that is the law. The president took an oath promising to follow the law.

Thus, as the resolution states:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.


Didn't the president unlawfully disregard these provisions? Don't these provisions represent the restraint that I maintain is implied in the resolution. Isn't this actually a case of the president pushing past Congress, the American people, and the international community in his race to war?


This is the part though that I believe involves the president and his word.

Defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq

According to who? According to what evidence presented. Doesn't the administration have an obligation to present the threat in a accurate and truthful manner? Did they? Weren't they obligated to under this resolution?

Why aren't the nay voters calling for a new resolution like Dennis in his call to repeal the authorization. Where is that push in Congress now from all of the dissenters?

I'll tell you where. They had a chance to modify the war in two separate funding bills. I know that my candidate voted against that $87 billion. That's as close to post-war opposition as any of the others in the Senate have managed. This is in the wake of evidence of no WMD's; hind views; and evidence mounting of the president inflating the threat.

Enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq?

U.N. Res.1441 was negotiated with bogus evidence presented by Powell. But the public still doesn't know the nature or the amount of evidence presented. Some were convinced some weren't. You can see in John Kerry's floor statement that he didn't abide risking the possibility that Iraq might restart a nuclear program, remote-controlled bombers, whatever. That was on the basis of bogus info.

But remember, there were no inspectors inside Iraq to verify anything. One of John Kerry's intentions in the resolution was to pressure Iraq with the U.N. resolution backed up by the threat of force. It worked until Bush pushed ahead and drove them out again. Those who would hold the president accountable are indebted to Hans Blix for his presence there and his candor.

[BeyondGeography]

50. Yes, it's an act of faith whenever you empower a President

because there are no guarantees. Which gets back to my original question: What was it about Bush's first two years that led John Kerry and all those others who voted for IWR and now complain about the outcome to believe that he would behave responsibly with the authority granted him by IWR?

[bigtree]

55. Bush took an oath to obey the law

Congress passes the laws. Every American had a right to expect that the President of the United States would follow the law and present the nature of the threat in a truthful manner, especially when committing our men and women to war.

[NNN0LHI]

33. Clark supporters do keep it in context as far as I can tell

As for the posters who have switched their avatars to Clark lately to begin bashing Kerry, I am not so sure about. Especially since some of these same posters who have recently changed their avatars to Clark were slandering Clark as a war criminal not too long ago. Strange world we live in, huh?

Don

[bigtree]

35. I believe that Wes Clark got it right in the NYT reported statements

"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.commondreams.org/headlines03/0919-01.htm

[NNN0LHI]

37. He did get it right. There is no doubt about it n/t

[Nashyra]

40. For the record

I have been in the Clark camp since the "draft movement" I put my money where my mouth was during the draft movement, have my one of 700 pins to prove it and proud of it.

[blm]

45. That's why I said it. Most Clark supporters were consistent about context

and lately it seems odd that some are now attacking Kerry and Edwards on IWR without regard to context.

Most of the longtime Clark supporters here are the least vitriolic, very reasoned posters who I enjoy and appreciate.

[Octafish]

52. Thanks for noticing.

False flag operations are nothing new when it comes to politics.

Here's an excellent example from New Orleans:

[Carolina]

62. I was with the draft Clark

movement precisely because I was fed up with Kerry after October 2002 and went looking for another candidate.

As for the avatar, dumb me, I just learned how to use the damn things.
So that's why it's a late addition to my posts. I have been consistently for Clark but give kudos to Dean for rousing the insiders, and to Kucinich for his Prayer for America and consistent stands against Bush while Kerry and Edwards still had their fingers in the wind.

[joshcryer]

36. What's bogus about people voting behind a buffoon?

You aren't saying that they didn't are you?

[blm]

58. No. I'm saying BLAMING them for IWR is bogus.

Just as it was bogus for those who took Clark's praise of Bush and took it to mean that Clark was to blame somehow for doing the right thing in respect to the regard for the OFFICE of the presidency.

The IWR was a proper step. Bush deserves the blame for not executing it properly.

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dansolo]

42. Did Russert mention that the interview was not live?

I think that the viewers should be aware that the interview was taped ahead of time.

[Carolina]

59. I said that at the outset

This whole charade was taped yesterday to spare the White House any embarassment. And despite some 'tough' questions, Timmy deferred to his idiocy. None of the attack dog techniques we typically see against Dems.

Even with all that, Bush still revealed himself and I cannot get beyond the fact that many in our party, particularly those who have been seeking to lead us: Gephardt, Lieberman, Kerry and Edwards all yielded to him, again and again and again.

[Tatiana]

47. This guy is a JOKE!

He says if his unit was called up, he would have gone to Vietnam... right after saying that he "worked something out with the military" to get off early fromm the National Guard to go to Harvard Business School.

Tell that to Clark and Kerry, who didn't have that fucking luxury.

UGH! I so hate this man.

[Carolina]

60. a very bad joke

I loathe him and all his enablers, many of whom now seek to replace him. Sheesh

Think I'll go watch GLADIATOR so I can dream we'll find our Maximus Dessimus Meridius!

[poskonig]

49. I forgot how dumb and deceitful this guy is.

If one doesn't have enthusiasm to show him the door, there's something wrong upstairs.

[styersc]

51. The government officials who "ceded warmaking power" to Bush

were the authors of the Cnstitution- and lots of those guys have already been president (with varying efficacy).