It's Called Waffling

[newsguyatl]

...and last minute saving your political ass.

here's what clark said yesterday:
"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/19/politics/campaigns/19CLAR.html



here's what clark says tonight:
"Let's make one thing real clear, I would never have voted for this war," Clark said before a speech at the University of Iowa. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this. There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war. I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2003/09/19/national1705EDT0659.DTL&type=printable

here's what he said BEFORE the war on CNN in February:
"Can you wait for a month? Sure, you can wait for a month, and you can pick up the allies, and we should do that. But we're going to war unless Saddam Hussein changes. We're not going to give Saddam a victory on this... we still need to go in and get the weapons of mass destruction, the capabilities, the scientists, the labs, the technology. We don't know where all of that stuff is, I don't think. I don't think any single person probably does, at this point. ... We've got the momentum, and were we to agree to a year or two years containment of Saddam, unless there's some strategic rationale for that, it's hard to see how it wouldn't be portrayed as a Saddam victory. And we know he's not going to disarm. We know from the evidence that he's going to continue to get these weapons."



that's 2 to 1 so far...



which is it mr. clark?


oh, and where are those weapons of mass destruction?

[Terwilliger]

1. maybe Clark should shutup and get some training

he's making a mess of himself so far

[diplomats]

14. And, of course, your hatred of Clark

doesn't color your judgment at all. Thanks for sharing your "expertise."

[Terwilliger]

22. excuse you...this kind of waffling killed Gore

back to your regular sand...dont get any in your nose!

BY THE WAY! I hate no one...that's for Freepers. And since you seenm to hate Dean, Nader, and me, I'd say you had some serious problems :eyes:

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[Pepperbelly]

71. I think you mis-spelled his name.

Doctor Fraud.

:D

[IndianaGreen]

25. And your self-induced blindness to fhe facts

reflect badly on you.

It's pretty pathetic to see the supporters of a candidate cover their ears so as not to hear what their own candidate said in interviews published by the NY Times and the Washington Post.

Speaking of a major case of denial!

[diplomats]

43. I was responding to Terwilliger's statement

that Clark's campaign was a mess, not to the original post. BTW, I'm not "blind" to any facts. If Clark turns out to be a bad candidate, I'll happily support someone else. He's been a declared candidate for two days. I think I'll give him a little time before I throw him overboard, OK?

[IndianaGreen]

82. I think Clark is just a novice in politics, but this is not a show stopper

Although his comments about the Iraq war on Thursday kinda took everyone by surprise. If one were to accept such ambivalence and vacillations that Clark expressed on the Iraq war resolution, then we would also have to accept Kerry's, which I am not prepared to do.

While there are legitimate questions that Clark has to answer, he did not vote for the Iraq war.

Let's see how he does!

[bitchkitty]

81. Hatred?

I'm with Ter on this one, but I don't hate him. I just don't want the DLC's replacement for Lieberman.

[ShaneGR]

2. Uh, newsguy, I think we could find tons of stuff

That's negative about Dean and his waffling. Heck, he's said he's sorry about stuff around 20 times. That's ok, because he's a straight talker. I like that about Dean. But Clark is a straight talker too, and I like that about him too.

I like Clark more but that doesn't mean I need to run around trashing Dean. Dean's a great candidate. You should spend more time giving people a reason to vote for your candidate, not give them a reason not to vote for someone elses. It works better.

[newsguyatl]

3. concerning the war?

find it my friend, make my day.



just the facts, as simple as that.



lovely, ain't it?

[vi5]

13. Hmm....an idea perhaps....maybe not everyone is voting ONLY

based on the war.

[wyldwolf]

87. Correct! Not everyone is voting based on the war. In fact,...

...I'd be willing to bet more people are voting based on other issues besides the war.

[ShaneGR]

37. HEY NEWSGUY

Read a book, you're the news guy. See what he says about how we could have handled Iraq. He puts it all in there for ya pointblank, you're the newsguy, READ it:


http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1586482181/qid=1064022132/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-2091418-3679934

[Starpass]

4. Well, Dean said Wes was a good friend

..so maybe he caught the "waffles" from Dean. It's going around,you know. But I'm sure it will all be aokay once that October surprise hits that will propel Dean into orbit.

[newsguyatl]

10. this is true

and it's also true i was a clark supporter, behind dean, until 2 days ago, too.


i hope dean disassociates himself with clark... and quickly.



on edit: "But I'm sure it will all be aokay once that October surprise hits that will propel Dean into orbit."

you bet your ass it will!


although with clark's stumbles in his first 2 days, no october surprise will be needed....

[DoveTurnedHawk]

12. I Dispute That Characterization

and it's also true i was a clark supporter, behind dean, until 2 days ago, too.

I dispute it strongly.

DTH

[newsguyatl]

17. dispute your little

doveturnedhawkish heart all you want.



folks who know me here, and otherwise, know i strongly supported a dean/clark ticket. even had it on my sigline for about a month.


glad i learned my lesson, and quickly.



so go ahead and dispute it guy, dispute all you want.




just know this --> you're wrong.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

21. Not Worth My Time To Search

Just telling you my recollection.

Hugs and Kisses,
DTH

[diplomats]

23. Um, supporting a Dean/Clark ticket means you support Dean,

not Clark. Your statement is misleading. Supporting Clark for VP is hardly the same as backing his presidential candidacy.

[hedda_foil]

41. You did indeed, newsguy.

You absolutely though Clark would be the best VP candidate with Dean until yesterday late afternoon or early evening. And I'm with you!

Hang in there!
hedda

[diplomats]

49. OK, but I was under the impression

newsguy said he supported Clark for president. Not quite the same thing. Maybe I interpreted his comments the wrong way.

[newsguyatl]

51. thanks hedda!

whew, glad someone came through for me...


it's like being in a boxing ring here lately...



thing is, though, i love a good fight :-)

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

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

[newsguyatl]

62. EXCUSE YOU???????????????????????

>>>>>>>>A week ago you said you worked for CNN and you came across some story that's supposed to blow everyone away and be great for everyone. Then you changed that to "be good for Dean." Then you changed that to "Will be bad for Clark."<<<<<<<

first - where i work has NOTHING to do with the scoop i got about october. NOTHING at all. NOR did i ever insinuate it did.

second - i NEVER said "it would blow everyone away" as you say i did. (please show me where i said this or anything like it) ... i said it would "transform this race," and indeed, IMO, it will.

third- i NEVER said it'd be "great for everyone." see above.

fourth - i NEVER said it "will be bad for clark." instead, i was replying to starpass's comment that it "will propel Dean into orbit." which, IMO, it will.


it's good you're not a journalist, because you'd be a miserable failure. (i got that from gephardt by the way)


get your facts straight before you attack me again.


or better yet, just let it go.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

64. If You're Such an Honest Journalist

Then why don't you ever post the entire context of the Clark quotes you use as a bludgeon against him?

DTH

[blm]

65. Ouch...There it is!

My spouse works in a newsroom and he is forbidden from political activism.

newsguyCNN seems to have carte blanche to push Dean. That's very odd, especially since CNN is most certainly under the thumb of the BFEE ever since AOL wormed their way in.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

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

[blm]

88. That's just rude.

And he dislikes Dean more than I do. He said he gets the same creepy feeling from Dean that he gets from Bush. That's the observation of an artist who works in the news business. Funny, he was talking to Ted Rall recently and Rall REALLY has the same problem with Dean.

[newsguyatl]

67. i posted

an entire chunk of his commentation from cnn. i did NO editing or selective quoting (aside from bolding points i thought were important)... i've been through this already today, and won't get bogged down with it again here.

just so you know (and i very seriously doubt you do) everyday, journalists pick soundbites and quotes from folks to tell the story. everyday. that's a journalist's job. picking someone's words to tell story. that's what i did. ((i guess you also think the ny times writer "selectively quoted" clark saying he would have supported the vote, too huh?))


what i posted were clark's words, not mine.


again i say, don't be mad at me, be mad at your candidate.


he said it. not me.

[DoveTurnedHawk]

69. Uh-Huh

Keep telling yourself that you're an honest journalist as you engage in blatant boostership for Dean and blatant, misleadingly selective slams against Clark.

Christ, at least have the intellectual honesty to admit you're a partisan advocate, rather than embracing some kind of claim that you're being objective here, and then getting all huffy when anyone tries to call you on it.

DTH, Clark Partisan, But Basher of No Dems

[diplomats]

70. newsguy

I seem to recall the scoop you talked about involved more than Dean. Do I remember correctly?

[newsguyatl]

72. you are correct sir (or madam). i said "it deals with more than dean."

indeed it does.

[diplomats]

74. Thanks

I'm a madam, BTW. :) Hey, if it comes to fruition and helps to ultimately bring down Bush by way of energizing us, I'm all for it.

[diplomats]

18. I agree

If newsguy was an erstwhile Clark supporter, he needs to provide links to his pro-Clark posts to prove it.

[ShaneGR]

19. Quote

and it's also true i was a clark supporter, behind dean, until 2 days ago, too.

Yeah, and a flock of geese just flew out of my ass.

[blm]

5. It seems not many doubted the need to remove WMDs.

Dean statement on Iraq, March 17:

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.
>>>>

Basically, most of the candidates were on the same page, it's all a matter of what they decide to emphasize.

Now, Dennis Kucinich had a very clear antiwar stance.

[Julien Sorel]

15. Aren't those words almost exactly what Clark said?

They sure do seem familiar. I've been busy with work this week, but I'm going to have to do some digging on Governor Dean when I get some free time, see just how different his position was from CLark's. Ought to be interesting. And if I keep finding stuff like this, I would expect the Kool-aid crew to abandon their divine leader, since what is evil in Clark must be evil in everyone, right?

[newsguyatl]

20. dig away pal

folks have been diggin on dean for months now, and have come up empty handed... but good luck to you.


you also might want to do some diggin on your man clark... but somehow i don't think you'll like what you find.



ignorance is bliss, eh?

[Julien Sorel]

28. Right.

I've been seeing nothing but pure crap about Clark for weeks now -- including that absurd piece of tripe you praised from Counterpunch today.

If Clark's statements about the war were consistent with Dean's, are you going to start lambasting Dean with the same fervor you now spend attacking Clark? Nope. You'll double the dose of cyanide in your Kool-aid, and continue on your current delusional path.

[Terwilliger]

24. just like a Republican

your boy gets trashed for his own problems, and you want to talk about SOMEBODY else :eyes:

[DoveTurnedHawk]

29. Isn't It Legitimate To Point Out

That Dean's position on this is practically identical to Clark's?

I love both of them, I think both of them are right. The only difference is that Dean is much better at getting his message out, while Clark made an amateur's mistake.

DTH

[newsguyatl]

33. no,

dean never said: "But we're going to war unless Saddam Hussein changes. We're not going to give Saddam a victory on this...And we know he's not going to disarm. We know from the evidence that he's going to continue to get these weapons."

actually, he's never said anything remotely similar....


in addition, he's never said he would have supported the resolution. in fact, he's said quite the opposite.

but you already knew that, right?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

36. 60 Days

That's what Dean wanted, according to WillPitt, who I trust.

In substance, that sure seems pretty much identical to what Clark has said in the past. His brain fart yesterday notwithstanding.

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

40. Describing what is going to happen isn't agreeing with it.

[Terwilliger]

35. well, that MAY be true

but he's been playing war pundit since 2002...just how much does it take for a man to stake out a position?

If he keeps trying to change his story, I've got to assume he's pandering. There's no other choice, unless, of course, he's an idiot. Is he an idiot?

[DoveTurnedHawk]

38. Not an Idiot, But Definitely A Bad Moment for Him Yesterday

No one's perfect; he was in a 90-minute interview, and he fumbled on his words. An amateur's mistake, and it will doom him if he continues to make them, IMO. But I'm hoping he improves rapidly; his history indicates that he is not a man to make stupid mistakes often.

DTH

[Julien Sorel]

32. Just like Terwilliger -- unable to exercise even a tiny

amount of logical thinking.

[Terwilliger]

39. too bad you're such a reactionary, Bunter

you could have a future if you weren't so emotional

[Julien Sorel]

44. LOL

I'll take your judgment for what it's worth.

[diplomats]

61. Hey, Terwilliger

I sent you a PM. Please check your in box!

[cmd]

6. Convince me why I should support Dean

You keep telling me why I should not support Clark. I want to know why I should support Dean. I'm ready for a constructive discussion.

[Brucey]

7. Clark's words and actions are typical of a sheeple.

He is a follower, not a leader. He wants to be right about everything, so says what fits the situation. If he had a coherent, ethical principle behind his words, they would normally be consistent (depending on the context, of course). Clark is probably a pretty good guy who is trying to say and do the right thing, but like a lot of our political leaders, he needs someone to tell him what the right thing is when the imitative rules he has learned don't fit the context. He would be better than Chimpy, and might even be a good president. However, he does not seem like a principled thinker, nor do I think he ever would be based on his choice of life's work, and I would prefer a fast learner to a slow learner for my president.

[Demobrat]

8. Wow.

I'm trying to keep an open mind about this guy, because I had never really heard of him until the rumor started circulating that he would be Dean's VP. I never saw him on CNN. As far as the debate flap, big deal. A scheduling conflict. But this sounds like he was just one of W's many enablers back then. I wonder if anybody can point me to an example of where he questioned the invasion before it happened. It would ease my mind quite a bit.

On edit: I don't mean talking about getting a coalition together and not going it alone. Everybody said that. I mean where he questioned the actual motive for the war.

[JVS]

9. You are forgetting the spin!

It's strategizing!

[DoveTurnedHawk]

11. Here's What Else He Said

Oh, and by the way, in the much-criticized commentary from yesterday, Clark ALSO said he and Dean essentially held the same position. He also said many other things in the 90-minute, rambling interview that were anti-war. Please try to tell the whole story.

On the CNN thing, he was in favor of waiting, and gathering more international support...again, a position practically identical to that of your chosen candidate, Dean (who I also love). Where's your criticism of him?

DTH

--

Let's Wait to Attack

By General Wesley K. Clark

<...>

We must also have sustained public support, but so far, our national debate on Iraq has been upside down. The Administration announced its aim to change the regime in Baghdad before it made the case for action. To some, our government seemed to be seeking war as a preferred choice rather than as a last resort. We need a real debate to gain the full and informed support of the American people as we move ahead.

In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months. The U.S. has total military dominance of the region. Although Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, he has no long-range missiles with which to deliver them. Certainly, the clock is ticking, because Saddam may eventually acquire the nuclear weapons and delivery systems he seeks. Nonetheless, there is still time for dialogue before we act.

Some would say that since we can't be certain how much time we have until then, we must attack right away. It is true that any delay entails risks. But so does action. So we must balance those risks, and take actions that not only achieve our aim of disarming Saddam--and probably ending his regime in the process--but also help defeat al-Qaeda. How can we do both?

President Bush was right to carry the problem of Iraq to the United Nations. And he is right to stay with the diplomatic process, as we seek to sway international opinion to our side. Even if the U.N. is ultimately unable to give us the strong resolution that we seek, the support of friends and allies will be important--as it was in Kosovo--in gaining worldwide credibility for our aims and legitimacy for our actions. Moreover, while we have the time, we must do everything possible to prepare for some unpleasant possibilities. What if Saddam uses his biological arsenal on his own people in southern Iraq? Are we prepared to deal with the ensuing catastrophe alone, or would we not be wiser to help ready international humanitarian and emergency organizations to come in with us? After Saddam's government collapses, are we prepared to maintain order and prevent mayhem? Wouldn't we be wiser to arrange for police support from other nations and international organizations? And if, as a result of conflict, Iraq's economy collapses, wouldn't we like to have international organizations ready to assist in nation building? Afterward, when agencies from the Islamic world enter Iraq to help rebuild, won't we want to inhibit anti-Americanism and anti-Western sentiment by having thought through the many possible humanitarian problems before we are blamed for them?

The answer to all these questions is yes, if we have the time. Well, we do. The key issue about Iraq has never been whether weshould act if Saddam doesn't comply with U.N. resolutions anddisarm. Rather, the problems are how we should act, and when. As for the how, the answer is clear--multilaterally, with friends and allies, with every possible effort to avoid the appearance of yet another Christian and Jewish stab at an Islamic country, with force as a last resort, and with a post-conflict plan in place to assure that the consequences of our action do not supercharge the al-Qaeda recruiting machine. As for the when, let's take the time to plan, organize and do the whole job the right way. This will only take a few more weeks, and it's important. It's not just about winning a war--it's also about winning the peace.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/

[tjdee]

16. You're emphasizing the wrong portions--there's no waffle.

He's saying the same thing all three times.

"You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

is the same as:

"I would have voted for the right kind of leverage to get a diplomatic solution, an international solution to the challenge of Saddam Hussein."

There's a minor gaffe here, obviously, but I don't think he's dumb enough to change his entire position in one day.
Both are the same as:

"Can you wait for a month? Sure, you can wait for a month, and you can pick up the allies, and we should do that."

Some people thought he had WMD, some thought he didn't. And we kept saying get the inspectors in, for that reason, to find out. And we WERE going to war unless Saddam totally flipped over for us. That was a fact, and his saying so doesn't mean he loved it and couldn't wait to bomb some Iraqis. He's not even saying Saddam has WMD in your quote, he says WMD, labs, technology, he's running down the list of all the things he could possibly have.

Anyway, it depends on your perception--I know that from discussing the meaning of "favor".

[newsguyatl]

26. umm, whatever you say

but two can play at this:


he said tonight: "There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war."

he said in february: "But we're going to war unless Saddam Hussein changes. We're not going to give Saddam a victory on this. ... . And we know he's not going to disarm. We know from the evidence that he's going to continue to get these weapons."



so help me out here, were or were not those weapons of mass destruction he was assured saddam had an imminent threat?


i dunno, just ask clark...



but i doubt he'll give you a straight answer.

[Bertrand]

31. Question

but two can play at this:


he said tonight: "There was no imminent threat. This was not a case of pre-emptive war."

he said in february: "But we're going to war unless Saddam Hussein changes. We're not going to give Saddam a victory on this. ... . And we know he's not going to disarm. We know from the evidence that he's going to continue to get these weapons."



so help me out here, were or were not those weapons of mass destruction he was assured saddam had an imminent threat?


i dunno, just ask clark...



but i doubt he'll give you a straight answer.


Where does Clark advocate that Saddam poses an imminent threat and that we had to pre-emptively invade to prevent him from destroying us imminently? Seriously, i because i think you actually believe that from the quote just posted.

[Bertrand]

53. newsguyatl

answer the question.

[Bread and Circus]

27. It is not waffling...

I think he just mis-spoke yesterday...perhaps
he was tired, I believe that was on an a flight
between stops.

Waffling is changing your mind when you see no one
agrees with you. This is not what Clark did.

I can understand the confusion, but Clark's foreign
policy will be the gold standard of this campaign
for others to emulate. If Dean, wins the nom I would
not be surprised if he heavily borrows from Clark's
framework.

[newsguyatl]

30. heh

"I think he just mis-spoke yesterday...perhaps
he was tired, I believe that was on an a flight
between stops"


riiight, silly me... he was probably just so tired he couldn't remember if he would have voted for or against the resolution... certainly understandable.


i should have been more considerate.

[Bread and Circus]

42. You should be more considerate....

especially in light of the fact that I give
Howard Dean a lot of leeway on his numerous gaffes.

It's cool. I know you are just upset about Clark
being a threat.

I think in the end you will like him.

[Vis Numar]

45. oh my f****** g**

I loved Clark, supported him for a fling, before going back to Dean, and still loved him for VP. Shit, I just felt my heart sink when I read Adam Nagourney's NYT's piece, he had to yell out to his Press Secretary for help, GGGGGGRRRRRR, wtf happened??? Shit. Where the fuck was Fabiani???

I hope Clark can rebound from this, because I really want him to be Dean's VP.

[Jackhammer Jesus]

46. It's called hindsight.

Always 20/20, right?

Let's take this from a different perspective. Most DUers were probably against the war from the beginning (hell if I'd know, I've only been here for about two weeks), but as you're all aware of, MOST of the country did. Attribute it to BushCo's lies, the demonizing of Saddam (which has obviously gone on for far longer than just this administration), the 9/11 connection, etc. But the fact remains that there was a huge support base for this war among the general American public. I don't think I'd be going out on a limb by judging from Clark's February statement that he also believed that Saddam was hiding weapons from us, not cooperating with inspectors through the UN, and that war would be inevitable. Well, just like so many others after "major combat operations" ended, he began to realize (albeit sooner than the general populace, it seems) that we were misled and brought to a war that, in fact, was NOT necessary, and the much-hyped imminent threat was nonexistant.

This is the exact kind of anti-war sentiment that is starting to prevail now. NOT people who opposed the war from the very beginning, but people who supported it initially and now have been left feeling betrayed and lied to. I think these are the sort of people Clark is trying to appeal to. He's willing to discuss how he would have gone about the war differently, because - I believe - he realizes that most people were not against the war in Iraq, but against the circumstances that led us into that war.

You can look back and say "Gee, he certainly wasn't anti-war in February! How quickly he's changed his tune!" But I wonder if you realize that most of this country has made, or is in the process of making the exact same transition as the conditions in Iraq get worse for our soldiers and as they realize that we won't be finding any of those evil weapons that Saddam and his big bad terrorist buddies were ready to use on our women and children and kittens.

Call it waffling if you want. I think the transition from pro- to anti-war will endear him to middle-of-the-road Americans who thought it was a good idea at first, but don't feel that way now. Part of the "electability" concept that many Clarkies used to like to harp on.

[Demobrat]

56. It might. But only if he gets up there and straight out says

Bush lied and I fell for it. And talks about what he thinks should be done about it. So far it's sounding more like "If I had known then what I know now". That's not going to cut it. Anybody can say that. I think just about everybody who voted for the war resolution is saying that now.

[whathappened]

47. i think we should all

look into a mirror and look back and see how many time each of us have posted something on this board and then changed our minds , it is human and forgetfulness , i think all the dem canadates are all great and when the time comes for just one to stand tall to make the run we should all get behind this man and get rid of this chump we have in office right now and get america back to being alittle more peaceful , and not screew up anything else in this wonderful world we live in , there is a big pond between us and we should be on our side of the pond minding our own buiness

[newsguyatl]

52. i don't know about you

but i've NEVER EVER changed my mind on the legality of this war. i knew from the beginning this was was about oil and dominance in the middle east, an evil plan by the PNAC.

and i sure as HELL want my leader to have known the same thing.


sure, people flip flop on issues. that's a given. it's part of growing and learning... i understand that, and i would not call clark out on changing his mind on certain domestic or economic issues... that's to be expected.


but we're talking about BUSH'S WAR here... there IS no room for forgiveness...


and CERTAINLY no room for waffling.

[KG]

48. gee, clark waffled?

you mean he *gasp* acted like any other politician running for office?

and here i was led to believe he walked on water! oh, the shame, the shame! :eyes:

[Robin Hood]

50. Stumbles and trips before getting out the gate.

Is this horse race over for Clark? Or will he be a teflon president?

It sure sounds like we would be in this Iraq mess if Clark was prez.

Gore was the ONLY ONE who came out against the war before the war.

[diplomats]

54. And Gore was the guy who by all rights should've been there

ironically

[newsguyatl]

57. i absolutely agree, diplomats

i have tons of respect for gore, and it grows daily.


he 'gets it.'

[diplomats]

60. I wonder if the truth will ever come out about 2000

Gore deserves that. We all do!

[hedda_foil]

59. Gore and Dean.

Dean was saying what Gore said before Gore said it. By that I don't in any way mean to imply that Gore was copying Dean because I am quite sure he was not. They both based their positions on the fact that Chimpy never provided real facts to justify his war. And as we all now know for sure, they were both correct.

And btw, for those who keep quoting Dean's "60 days" statement ... he was saying the same things as the French, for God's sake. Give the UN inspectors another 60 days to do their work rather than rushing into war with the inspectors on the ground having been given full access to everything. And he said that during the immediate weeks preceding the war. Before the resolution in October he wanted * to come back to Congress for another resolution if he believed that war was necessary and the UN refused to go along. After the resolution in October, he continually stated that * hadn't provided real evidence and that the resolution gave him too much power.

[CWebster]

55. Check it out

"...But the operation in Iraq will also serve as a launching pad for further diplomatic overtures, pressures and even military actions against others in the region who have supported terrorism and garnered weapons of mass destruction. Don’t look for stability as a Western goal. Governments in Syria and Iran will be put on notice — indeed, may have been already — that they are “next” if they fail to comply with Washington’s concerns.

And there will be more jostling over the substance and timing of new peace initiatives for Israel and the Palestinians. Whatever the brief prewar announcement about the “road map”, this issue is far from settled in Washington, and is unlikely to achieve any real momentum until the threats to Israel’s northern borders are resolved. And that is an added pressure to lean on Bashir Assad and the ayatollahs in Iran.

As for the political leaders themselves, President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt. And especially Mr Blair, who skillfully managed tough internal politics, an incredibly powerful and sometimes almost irrationally resolute ally, and concerns within Europe. Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced. And more tough questions remain to be answered.

Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.

Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats."

-Wesley Clark

Yo. No way.

[hedda_foil]

63. Sounds like an endorsement of PNAC to me.

And don't think only Republicans support the PNAC agenda. The only difference between the DLC and the neocons on the imperial agenda is that the DLC want to implement it under cover of multilateralism.

The neocons aren't conservatives or Republicans. All they care about is imperial power. If that means supporting halfway decent environmental policies or a woman's right to choose, that's not going to be a problem for them. They started out as Trotskyite Democrats. They can be DLC Democrats just as easily.

[blm]

68. Dean (Sharon's boy) has been pointing at Iran and Syria

for almost a year now.

[IndianaGreen]

84. Dean is now "Sharon's boy"?

Bawahahahahahaha! Well, let's see the Holy Joe brigade, or should I say squad, leap to the defense of our brave Israeli Prime Minister. Or, how about the "unholy trinity" of posters that are constantly accusing DU of coddling anti-Semitism?

Your mischaracterization of Dean reflects the desperation of many of Kerry's supporters. Such high hopes! How sad to see them turn into such a "miserable failure."

[blm]

89. Dean promised Sharon MORE money for defense than Bush.

He supports Sharon's wall. He has said that a Palestinian state must be demilitarized.

MORE billions of defense $$$$ for Sharon, and the Palestinians can't even have a defense component at all. That's his idea of evenhanded?

Are you denying Dean said these things, IG?

[Starpass]

66. If you all would shut up for 5 min you would see that Jackhammer

just said it all. That's why Americans are not going to "cotton" up to Dean and his "look I'm the anti-man" rhetoric; but why a Clark or a Kerry or an Edwards or a Gep, etc. will appeal to them. There was another poster tonight somewhere who commented about how maybe we should consider that not every Dem was "against the war". These people are getting sick of Bush but that doesn't translate in any way, shape or form that they want someone, particularly someone who never served in the military, to stick out his tongue at them because they thought it was right at the time. Remember Bush had near 90% approval rating after 9/11. After the first bombs went off in Iraq he had approval ratings in the 70's---now unless everyone went out and re-registered as a republican, it means a whole fucking shitpile of Dems said "right on, dude"!! Now, let's go out and insult them as stupid fuckers and see how much they respond. But when they don't, we can sit around and cry about how they just are too blind to see the savior.

[Pastiche423]

75. Why are you negating

the million or more United States Citizens that protested for over seven months leading up to the slaughter? You don't think those people vote?

Those high ratings were utter BULLSHIT! We have no free press now, or haven't you noticed?

I'm betting the majority of people in this country are friggen sick of war. Being the militarist candidate that would have voted for the IWR is not going to give him the edge in the Democratic Party you may think it does.

I, for one, AM FUCKING SICK OF ALL OF THE SLAUGHTER!

[diplomats]

76. A lot of people are sick of it

and the number is growing

[NewYorkerfromMass]

77. How can the majority of people in this country be sick of war?

especially when the majority is not doing the shooting, fighting, and dying? Oh that's right, when they realize they're paying MONEY for it, well ... that's another thing altogether.

[cmd]

79. BINGO

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[quaker bill]

78. I concur

I was out there organizing efforts to stop this was before it started.

Millions of people could see that this was BS. Our rallies grew every week and the positive responses to the protests outnumbered the negative 10 to 1 or better.

And I live in the south and in a southern republican stronghold to boot.

[Starpass]

80. right there is the problem

while the protestors were marching we were closely divided on supporting the war. It was one of those 52-48 or 51-49 splits, etc. Then the bombs fell and it shot up into the 70's. The big stories at that time were how once we went the American people did then back it because they backed the troops. Thus, a whole bunch of those who at first said "no, don't go", turned around and said "okay, I'll support it for our troops". It took about 5 months for it to catch up finally in Bush's approval ratings. They still are conflicted about feeling they owe it to the people to stay there and help them while wanting to get our people out. They feel an obligation to these people but they just wish they didn't have to go it alone.

[truthisfreedom]

83. READ his words from Thursday CAREFULLY... he called bush* a LIAR.

read the first sentence carefully... see the words "When the president... makes the linkages"? he's saying that he would have been fooled by bush's lies just like anyone else in congress. THAT'S ALL HE'S SAYING.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/clark/articles/2003/09/19/clark_says_he_probably_would_have_voted_for_war/

<snip>
"On balance, I probably would have voted for it," Clark said. "The simple truth is this: When the president of the United States comes to you and makes the linkages and lays the power of the office on you, and you're in a crisis, the balance of the judgment probably goes to the president of the United States."

<snip>

Clark said yesterday that he was "against the war as it emerged" because more could have been done to build international support: "There was no reason to start it when we did."

He added that he also would have sought assurances that the president would consult with Congress again before taking action, and now that troops have been committed, they should be given the resources they need to be successful.

Asked about Dean's criticism of the war, he said, "I think that he's right that, in retrospect, we should never have gone in there."

[phegger]

85. Sounds pretty reasonable to me...

makes more sense than whatever explanation Kerry's been trying to make for the last two months.


-ph :smoke:

[sandnsea]

86. It's the SAME thing

Except possibly Kerry took more responsibility for his decision and didn't lay it off on the President. Maybe he figures people ought to have enough common sense to see that a Senator is presented with policy by the President. He's stuck with it and has to make a decision. Kerry looked at everything he knew from years and years of testimony and reports. He made a very concise speech on what the process should be and what the only reason for war should be and why he was supporting the resolution. He said there was no imminent threat, bla bla, and the only reason to go to war was disarmament and only as a last resort. There were also agreements by Bush to work with the UN and go back to Congress before a war. He said in January Bush wasn't making the effort with the UN and 'do not rush to war'. I don't know how he could have been more clear and more right all along the way. People just don't want to see it and I have no idea why.