Hillary is a fighter, she's had to be

[springhill]

http://www.dailyhowler.com/

Some people wanted a concession on Tuesday. That’s fine, but historically, people don’t do that. By the way: It would be weird to spend all day Tuesday asking people to vote for you—then to show up at 8:30 PM and say, “I’m out of here—please vote for the other guy.” Whatever you think of Clinton’s speech, it would be somewhat odd to endorse on the night you ran in two primaries, trying to win. Historically, people don’t do that.

(There’s one other point to consider here: For ourselves, we weren’t heart-broken by this campaign’s outcome—but a great many Dem voters were. Historically, pols don’t kick voters to the curb on the night their dream has died. They give them some time to adjust to what happened. But then, this is basic human relations, a subject the life-forms comprising our pundit corps tend to know little about.)

<snip>

Hillary Clinton has gotten this far because she doesn’t quit real quickly. By the way: When’s the last time you saw a Big Dem who didn’t quit at the very first chance? The roll-over for the October 02 war resolution vote was the most gruesome example. (“Let get the resolution out of the way so we can talk about health care for a few weeks.”) For our money, Clinton’s refusal to quit in the past few months makes her a remarkable role model. We hope other Dems will recall her approach and learn to roll over less quickly.

But as pundits bellow and wail, saying she hung on too long this week, we’ll suggest you remember the tons of pure horse-sh*t this person has fought through over the years. Typically, she did this while receiving no help at all from the famous front-runners who whined and complained this week.

Hillary Clinton tends not to quit. That’s how she persisted through so much sh*t with so little help from “career liberals.” Just consider three events from 1999 alone:

In June, the cowards and clowns of your “mainstream press corps” invented that ludicrous Cubs-Yankees scandal. They called her every name in the book. But go ahead! Search the work of your favorite “career liberal.” You’ll find him hiding under his desk, too frightened to complain about this—or about the pseudo-lies being invented about Candidate Gore.

In August, they dragged out Gennifer Flowers to inform us about Hillary Clinton’s murders. (And about the fact that she’s the world’s biggest lesbo.) Yes, that’s right—about her murders! Flowers clowned about this for a half-hour on Hardball—then was rewarded with the full hour on Hannity. (Fox re-broadcast the program that weekend.) Go ahead! Search the work of your favorite “career liberal.” Give us the name of even one person who complained about this assault on everything decent people should hold dear.

But anyway, Hillary Clinton, like Gore, was the world’s biggest liar—and she’d committed a long string of murders! And not only that! She had been funny-looking in the 70s! In August, Bill Clinton made a major mistake; he described how he fell in love with his wife when they were students in law school. In response, Brit Hume posted a photo of a young Mrs. Clinton—a photo he plainly found unattractive. For the next several minutes, Hume’s pundit panel on Special Report staged the kind of discussion that was increasingly a stain on the cartel described as a “press corps:”

HUME (8/23/99): The picture he paints of Mrs. Clinton is of a sort of a femme fatale. Now that’s about what she looked like then.



And one—one can’t help but wonder about this.

.

Apparently, the photo didn’t evoke Pamela Anderson, so Hume’s all-male panel treated itself to a good solid laugh. After speculating about the Clintons’ marriage, they returned to that decades-old photo:

JUAN WILLIAMS: The problem...is that nobody can believe, one, that she was this beautiful woman in college—anyone who’s seen the pictures. And two, who can believe that she didn’t know that this guy was a skirt-chaser all along?

JEFF BIRNBAUM: Well, I should point out, about the love-in-college part, that love is blind.



But that also—

HUME: Well, he never said she was beautiful. He said she was “compelling looking.” And that she may well have been!



Go ahead! List this week’s nit-picking “career liberal” pundits. And then, spend your weekend searching for anyone who said one word about this.

AND FROM DIGBY:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/06/coda-by-digby-apologies-for-dearth-of.html

First of all, congratulations to Senator Obama. This is a truly historic moment for the Democratic party and for America. When I was a kid (yes, back in the stone age) and when he was born, Barack Obama wouldn't have been allowed to stay in the same hotels or get a drink in a bar or buy a house next to a large number of white Americans. Last night, America took another huge and necessary step in putting that awful history behind us. It was long overdue, and was made possible through the tremendous sacrifices and courage of many people who didn't live to see this day. I am grateful that I did live to see it. I will do everything in my meager power to help Obama win this campaign. The election of the first African American president will signal the end of the era of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. And nothing could be more fitting.

Also, congratulations to Senator Clinton, who in my view showed Democrats what a fighter looks like. This is the closest primary in history and despite what the bloviators and the gasbags have been saying for months, she had not only a right, but a duty, to fight on until the end for the half of the Democratic party that supported her. Clinton too was an historic candidate who inspired millions of people and she has my admiration.

<snip>

Clinton will officially end suspend the campaign on Friday, (which is perfectly in keeping with the usual timing of these things contrary to the gasbags' ahistorical and overwrought blathering of last night.) We will see what the Republicans have in store for us. And maybe we can start behaving like ourselves again. Family fights are always painful, but they are usually easily healed as well. Here's to the end of the Long March of 2008. It's been real.

[tularetom]

1. It's ironic that he praises Hillary for not giving up

and then uses the 2002 Iraq War Resolution as an example of how Dems are always giving up.

I kind of liked the way Hillary "didn't give up" on that war vote didn't you? She sure as hell didn't give up - she supported bush right down to the end in spite of the fact that it's now pretty well accepted that the whole thing was based on a pack of lies. In fact she has not yet given up on her support of the war vote. And why? She's scared shitless of being labeled as "Soft on terror". Still. After all these years. After all these lies.

Nope. Not Hillary. She's "tough" and she "never gives up.

[springhill]

4. I knew that was the one thing you would cling to............

and ignore everything else, just can't help yourself. Yes, she was wrong on the Iraq war vote as were so many other dems. (Kerry anyone?) Why is she held to such a different standard than everyone else? Is Kerry called a muderer? I don't think I have ever heard that about him, but yet Hillary is routinely taken to task for the exact same thing. Yes, there is a different standard for all things Clinton. And you just proved my point.

[tularetom]

8. None of the rest of them go around bragging how "tough" they are

But hillary does. Therefore it's entirely appropriate to point out how wimpy she actually is.

BTW she also voted for the patriot act, co sponsored a flag burning amendment, and voted for the horrendous lieberman Iraq terrorism bill = all because she was afraid she'd be ;labeled a "wimp'.

So yeah, I'd say she deserves to be ridiculed. She has consistently voted against what she truly believes from fear of the right wing.

[springhill]

16. Uh gee, who else supported the flag burning amendment?

http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh050508.shtml

An anti-harridan had been “pandering” with that flag-burning thing. Cohen knew it; the New York Times knew it–and Collins knew it again this past weekend. And Cohen, just like Lady Collins, knew the rest of this new classic script. You just can’t fool a life-form like Cohen. He drew the invidious distinction about Clinton/Obama just as Collins would:

COHEN (continuing directly): Look, I know what Obama was doing when he refused to confront his minister about the latter's embrace of Louis Farrakhan. He was ducking an issue with no upside for him. He will not get my Profiles in Courage award for this, but the rest of his record overwhelms this one chintzy act.

Not so with Clinton. In the first place, you don't get to pander with the First Amendment. It is just too important, too central, not merely an amendment but a commandment: Thou Shalt Not Abridge Speech. In the second place, this ugly lurch to the political right is not outweighed by a spectacular stand on some other matter of principle.

Cohen will give Obama a pass. But not so with vile Clinton, he says; after all, she supported that flag-burning crap! Like Collins, Cohen could tell: This flag-burning folderol showed the difference between these two candidates’ souls.

And then, one week later: Alas, poor Cohen! Yes, he has had to do this sort of thing in the past–but it’s gruesome every time it happens. Seven days after defining Clinton/Obama, the gentleman typed a minor correction. Good God! He’d done it again! This appeared in his next column:

COHEN (2/12/08): My Feb. 5 column was critical of Hillary Clinton for supporting a bill to make flag burning illegal. I have since learned from a reader that Barack Obama also supported that bill.

That’s right, dumb-ass! Clinton supported the flag-burning bill. And Obama supported it too!

But then, more than half the senate’s Democrats supported that bill, in June 2006. It was brought to the floor by Dick Durbin, Obama’s biggest senate supporter. Everyone understands the politics of these bills–everyone but Cohen and Collins, that is. Because they’re two of the world’s biggest androids, they keep singing the same tired songs.

[blm]

17. Kerry stuck by his promise to oppose the war should weapon inspectors prove it unnecessary

and Hillary sided WITH Bush's decision to invade and continued to do so as BILL Clinton made VERY PUBLIC statements supporting Bush and even took to using his summer2004 book tour to DEFEND Bush's decision to invade and his military strategy even as the Dem nominee was directing his attacks on Bush's decisions.

If you never saw that difference then that speaks to your attention span.

[grassfed]

25. Clinton Superdelegate: "Clinton Wanted to Exploit Jewish-Black Tension"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6302343

[hedgehog]

2. So, it's OK for Hillary Clinton's supporters to bring up all the old tabloid

stories?


Also, please explain again how the fact that some people tell nasty stories about her means that we must make her the nominee.

[leftofcool]

3. I don't think it said that, only that she has had to be a fighter

[blm]

7. fighter for what? She and Bill rolled on any Dem issue the GOPs wanted rolled over while

saving all the FIGHT they had in them for their personal battles.

Was universal healthcare fought for after it was initially defeated? Was it in Bill's 1996 platform as an ongoing battle they chose to have?

Was it fought for in the senate at any time from 2001-2007?

Nope. It was brought out for her primary campaign.

She fought - to undermine other Dems. never to oppose Bush on the most crucial matters of the last 7 years.

[hedgehog]

The article brought up examples of people being personally nasty to Hillary

My point is that apparently it is OK to dredge the sewers for this stuff if you are using it to gain sympathy for her.

[noiretextatique]

6. the point is that she is a fighter

and she fought tenaciously to the end. i believe that is the only point.

[blm]

10. To what purpose? She knew she lost on Super Tuesday. Her worst attacks on Obama came AFTER

she knew he was going to be the nominee and that she was not. Hillary 2012 was operating shortly after Super Tuesday - those attacks were designed to help McCain.

[noiretextatique]

12. i suppose she thought she still had a shot

as for the rest, i am glad she stepped down because people are starting to lose their ever-loving minds.

[blm]

20. They KNEW she had no shot. McClatchy did a survey of the SDs right after SuperTuesday

and the majority came down HEAVILY in Obama's column. Clintons knew about this, and so did many in the news organizations who kept it to themselves.

They wanted and needed Obama to fall...somehow...some way. Because that would be the ONLY way she had left.

[noiretextatique]

28. since that didn't happen

her strategy failed, she is out of the race, and obama is the presumptive nominee.

[blm]

39. and McCain is up in Pennsylvania because Jewish-black divide was a TACTIC of the Clintons.

This is not a no harm no foul situation - it has a lasting effect in Pennsylvania and states like it.

Looking the other way only leads to more looking the other way and we lose when that happens. We lose elections and we lose our souls.

[noiretextatique]

41. hillary clinton did not create that rift

nor did she create racism. her tactics were slimy, but let's not pretend that some people need hillary clinton to give them a reason to vote against obama. it certainly won't be because of his position on israel.

[blm]

43. of course, but his numbers didn't start to go south till she used this tactic

and there is no excuse for any Democrat exploiting the tactic, especially when they are doing it mindful of the fact, at that point, that Obama WAS the nominee.

[noiretextatique]

51. sorry...i don't buy it

mention sharpton or jesse jackson here and see what happens.

[blm]

52. you don't buy what? That she used the tactic? No one said she invented the tactic, so what aren't

you buying?

[noiretextatique]

53. she did not "invent" the tactic, and you know it

politicians exploit what already exists, and that is despicable. what is even more despicable is what already exists. if you want to see what already exists, start a thread praising al sharpton and jesse jackson.

[blm]

55. I never said she invented the tactic. And why make the use of her tactic acceptable.

Just because it's been done before?

That lets her off the hook?

[noiretextatique]

56. sorry...i misread you

and i don't let her off the hook...it was disgusting. just as disgusting as obama's pandering to homophobes, religionists, and republicans. it's ALL the SAME.

[seaglass]

45. You are really pushing this line today blm, why don't you read Obama's

own words:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/16/903077.aspx

Obama pleaded his case in front of the local Jewish community at a Philadelphia synagogue, saying that he had always had a "kinship" with the Jewish community and any mistrust that might exist of him was because of "scurrilous emails' and speculates based on him having a Muslim middle name.

"But if people don't mind, I'd like to be honest: A lot of the concern has been generated because of scurrilous emails that have been sent, generated based on speculation of the fact that my middle name is Hussein," he said, adding: "A lot of it has been generated as a consequence of the fact that I'm African American and that at times there've been tensions between the African-American leadership an the Jewish community."

He re-read part of his race speech from Philadelphia in prepared remarks, where he said that he denounced his former pastor's comments on Israel and re-affirmed his support of Israel as a Jewish state. The issues of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and President Carter's visit with Hamas were raised only twice. Obama denounced Carter's trip, saying that there should be no discussions with a terrorist organization.

[blm]

46. The point is the TACTIC is being accepted. The TACTIC has a lasting effect in Penn, as intended.

Move on...no problem? Some people always use that answer to everything foul.

Where has it gotten this nation?

Exactly HERE....in GD.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3398113

[seaglass]

47. You have just lost your credibility with me. Wow. I was behind

you 100% when you were for Kerry, I guess I should have paid closer attention to YOUR tactics.

I didn't say to move on, I said you were pushing a story that does not stand up to scrutiny and now you're trying to blame it for Obama's PA poll numbers when out of Obama's own mouth he acknowledges what the issues were/are with Jewish voters. And BTW I do not think Obama will have a problem with Jewish voters in the GE.

[blm]

48. It didn't stand up to what scrutiny? Andrews put it ON THE RECORD. What scrutiny refuted it?

Obama said what he needed to say, but that doesn't mean we accept the tactic that was perpetrated.

Did you even read Emit's post from last April when this came up at the time? Andrew's charge DOES have credibility - it's #87 in that thread.

How far did your scrutiny go?

[hfojvt]

38. no those tabloid stories from 1999 were brought up

to show that she had to be a fighter to have put up with all the crap she has taken and to show that nobody in the world of liberal media ever bothered to defend her.

But did she really need defending? She was the heavy favorite for that Senate election, she had name recognition and was raising tons of money. That's why she was hand-picked for the spot, a very undemocratic process and putting her in a state where she never lived (and still doesn't - is she spending a lot of time at home these days?).

So I am not all that impressed with her fighting prowess there. She really goes all out though when taking on another Democrat.

[noiretextatique]

42. ok, she's not a fighter

except against amother democrat, which makes her a fighter but not really...fine.

[blm]

5. Love ya Bob, but please name ONE FIGHT Clinton took on against Bush the last 8yrs. and the 2002 vote

came down BECAUSE both Clintons sided with Bush on his war agenda and Bill used his UNIQUE position as last Dem president to help Bush sell the need for war to those Dem lawmakers who would trust his words of evidence that he had seen as president that CORROBORATED Bush's view.

Funny how THAT part gets left out of the telling as the Dems who dared to believe Bill Clinton was being truthful with them about Iraq went along with Bill's call to support Bush on the resolution and to continue to support Bush on his DECISION to invade Iraq - as Bill Clinton did VERY publicly.

[noiretextatique]

9. very few democrats who have been fighting bush

the entire party has been the party of capitulation, with a few exceptions.

[blm]

11. As it was set up to do by Clintons from 1993-2005 when their grip on DNC was finally loose enough

for a new DNC chair NOT working only for needs of the Clintons to come forward.

[noiretextatique]

14. doesn't really change the facts, does it?

i hope that will change.

[blm]

22. Clintons undermined any Dem opposing Bush by playing Bush supporters themselves

as they were the face of the party and they knew it. That is a fact that doesn't change.

They fought harder for Bush to succeed against Dems than they ever did for any issue Dems needed back up on throughout that time. Remember Downing Street Memos? Remember Alito?

[tularetom]

15. That;'s true but only Hillary claims to be a "fighter"

If Russ Feingold or Waxman or Wexler wanted to claim that I'd be OK with it.

But Hillary? OK senator for the most part but definitely NOT a "fighter".

[noiretextatique]

18. gore and kerry claimed the same thing

and of the two, i have much more respect for gore.

[blm]

29. because you admire the battles Gore took on in his government career over the

battles Kerry took on in his?


I love Gore, but when it came to going to battle on important issues DURING his time in government he didn't exactly take on the toughest fights against Reagan and Bush. He took on some meaningful fights, but not the riskiest ones that entailed risking his life and career should he confront them.

[noiretextatique]

32. i am talking about their presidential bids eom

[blm]

34. pre 9-11 was so much easier than post 9-11, especially when one of your senate

targets (for Kerry) in 2003 was corporate media. Taking on BushInc at its most powerful is nothing to respect, especially with the last Dem president publicly supporting Bush on his decisions and making it MORE difficult?

Besides, old friend, I believe what you respect is that Gore UNCONCEDED. He conceded on election night when he believed he was 50,000 behind and he UNCONCEDED when the math changed in his favor.

Fine. He did the right thing. He had the math.

Kerry conceded the next day after there was 137,000 vote difference and he had no legal evidence in hand to stay a concession. He could unconcede if the math changed in his favor.

Clinton's DNC made sure Kerry would not have the evidence he needed to contest as McAuliffe refused to secure the election process in states like Ohio in the four years after 2000s theft.

Back to the media - Gore had it hard, there is no question about it. So did Kerry, and had it even harder because he presented a bigger problem for them.

Dan Rather admitted last year corpmedia NEEDED to protect Bush for a second term. McClellan's book confirms what we all knew - corporate media was in the tank for Bush anyway, and even moreso after 9-11. June 3, 2003 sealed how they would go all in to STOP a President Kerry.





June 2, 2003
Kerry Seeks to Reverse FCC's "Wrongheaded Vote"

Commission Decision May Violate Laws Protecting Small Businesses; Kerry to File Resolution of Disapproval

WASHINGTON - Senator John Kerry today announced plans to file a "Resolution of Disapproval" as a means to overturn today's decision by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to raise media ownership caps and loosen various media cross-ownership rules. Kerry will soon introduce the resolution seeking to reverse this action under the Congressional Review Act and Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act on the grounds that the decision may violate the laws intended to protect America's small businesses and allow them an opportunity to compete. As Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, Kerry expressed concern that the FCC's decision will hurt localism, reduce diversity, and will allow media monopolies to flourish. This raises significant concerns about the potential negative impacts the decision will have on small businesses and their ability to compete in today's media marketplace.

In a statement released earlier today regarding the FCC's decision, Kerry said: "Nothing is more important in a democracy than public access to debates and information, which lift up our discourse and give Americans an opportunity to make honest informed choices. Today's wrongheaded vote by the Republican members of the FCC to loosen media ownership rules shows a dangerous indifference to the consolidation of power in the hands of a few large entities rather than promoting diversity and independence at the local level. The FCC should do more than rubber stamp the business plans of narrow economic interests. "Today's vote is a complete dereliction of duty. The Commissioners are well aware that these rules greatly influence the competitive structure of the industry and protect the public's access to multiple sources of information and media. It is the Commission's responsibility to ensure that the rules serve our national goals of diversity, competition, and localism in media. With today's vote, they shirked that responsibility and have dismissed any serious discussion about the impact of media consolidation on our own democracy."

[politicasista]

35. People still love to hate on

Kerry here four and a half years later.. Always interesting that you hear crickets after that response.

I like them both, but people need to move on.

[blm]

36. noiret's an old pal here, and knows this is an honest exchange....

we expect it from each other.

[politicasista]

37. Cool

That's good to know. The more civil exchange the better. :)

[noiretextatique]

40. i'm at work, and i'm not "hating on" kerry

but he did cave on his promise to fight. move on, if you like, but i still say democrats caved when it mattered most, and that makes them as much at fault for bush inc's mess as the culprits themselves.

[blm]

44. The caving was done from 2001 thru 2004 election as McAuliffe made sure there'd be no evidence

available for Kerry to contest. Conceding when there is no math was unavoidable. If evidence surfaced, he could unconcede just like Gore did.

Think about McAuliffe's inaction on election security for four years and think about Carville's sabotage of Ohio Dem voters on election night and ask yourself Who were they both working for? I'm certain that answer is Hillary2008.

[TexasObserver]

13. Go Toward the Light.

Your candidacy is dead, and you need to go toward the light to crossover.

[springhill]

19. Believe it or not.........

and I really don't care whether or not you do..............I never really supported Hillary for president, however the vicious attacks were just way too much to take. That's all. I am just trying to point out the total attack on the Clintons, that others do not receive from the media. And for those who are going to deny this is so, there is no help for you.

[TexasObserver]

23. Gosh, it's so important that you do so, because we haven't heard it enough.

Enjoy your last few days of whining here about Obama and how you don't like him or his supporters or the world without Hillary in it.

[OzarkDem]

21. That some Dems buy into the right wing smear campaigns

against Hillary Clinton (and there will be others) says more about them than it does about Clinton.

Some people are so consumed with insecurity, they buy into the idea that any leader they support isn't worthy of public respect. Incredibly stupid and self-destructive.

[Egnever]

24. hillary is delusional

She hasnt fought for shit that matters in a long time. Only for her own standing and power.

If she comes out and fights for Obama I may change my mind on that but its going to take a ton of good deeds from her to ever convince me of that.

[hokies4ever]

26. She did a good job of creating the image of a fighter after Super Tuesday

It's called a good adjustment to her campaign strategy.

[frazzled]

27. It depends on your definition of fighting

I'm all for fighting for our Democratic ideals, relentlessly and faithfully (that's something Hillary did not do with respect to Iraq or foreign policy). It's when fighting gets confused with being politically ruthless, a la Karl Rove, that I have to say, "stop, let's not go there." That is where Hillary lost me, late this winter or early spring.

Hillary Clinton had at least three months to understand that short of a mass defection of superdelegates due to an Obama implosion, she had next to no chance of securing the nomination. She didn't find that out Tuesday night. No one was asking for her to do the full nine yards where she appears with the candidate and asks her supporters to get behind him. What no one expected--including many of her strongest supporters, including Hillary Rosen and Charlie Rangel, was for her to fail to mention at all that Obama had secured the necessary delegate votes to become the nominee, for her to continue to act as if she were still running the race. It was crazy inappropriate.

To me, a real Democratic fighter is someone like Ted Kennedy or Dick Durbin, people who stand up for the party's principles day in and day out. Fighting for your own nomination is not fighting for political ideals, it's just political fighting--and that's something I think we've all had enough of.

[blm]

50. well said....the honor is in the fight for principled causes...not self.

.

[burythehatchet]

30. WOW. What a steaming pile of Lieberman. Mr. Somersby has become disoriented.

[dsomuah]

31. Fighter my foot.

So many people who talk about this "fighting" spirit of Hillary. Have short memories. They don't remember that Hillary didn't really start to fight for the nomination until she realized that she might lose it, that it wasn't going to be handed to her.

This was the person who essentially conceded South Carolina to Barack Obama, and flew to California to start campaigning for Super Tuesday. This is the woman whose husband said that if Obama wins South Carolina it would be because of his race. This was the woman who didn't plan for her campaign to last beyond Super Tuesday, and stated more than once that the campaign would be over by then. This is the woman who wasn't much of a fighter during about 8 primaries in the two weeks after Super Tuesday, when more than 500 pledged delegates were up for grabs. The result? Obama won every single one of the Febuary primaries after Super Tuesday.

The reality is that Clinton didn't become a fighter until the Ohio and Texas primaries. She assumed she was going to win and only became a fighter after she started to realise she needed to fight or lose the thing. Fortunately for Obama, her efforts at the end were too little too late.

[cascadiance]

49. Half of "being a fighter" is to have a REASON or SOMETHING to fight FOR!

Hillary hasn't shown me anything that she's fighting for except herself! A lot of people that are evil are "fighters" and don't quit either. Doesn't mean I'll be sympathetic to them JUST because they are a fighter.

IF they are fighting for something worth fighting for and don't give up, THEN I see something I can admire. Fighting for one's own vanity or other reasons they don't want to state publicly is NOT something she can expect us to respect. In many people's book, fighting what many people perceive to be a good thing without any real substantive reason has another word for that behavior. Being a "troublemaker"!

[Swamp Rat]

33. Had she really fought the Bushler admin, over 4000 american soldiers would still be alive.

IWR

[noiretextatique]

54. that applies to every democrat and republican who supported IWR

including edwards, apology notwithstanding.