Bush is GOD! He's our wildly popular war-time president! It's too late for Clark! Dean is a McGovernite far-left liberal! The economy is surging into the stratosphere on the wings of the Bush tax cuts! We've liberated the Iraqi people and defeated the evildoers! I want Bush to be the father of my children!
Sorry but there definitely won't be an announcement of a Dean/Clark ticket. At best, Clark will announce he isn't running, and that could leave open the slim chance that he could become a veep nominee in about 9 months. He might even endorse Dean, and then become an advisor, if he decides not to run. But if he doesn't run for pres I strongly doubt he'll go for veep. It's much more likely to be Dean vs. Clark than Dean + Clark.
Bush is GOD! He's our wildly popular war-time president! It's too late for Clark! Dean is a McGovernite far-left liberal! The economy is surging into the stratosphere on the wings of the Bush tax cuts! We've liberated the Iraqi people and defeated the evildoers! I want Bush to be the father of my children!
Go Repubs!
1. Bush's war time leadership will benefit him.
2. It very well MAY be too late Clark
3. Bush and Co. would like nothing more than to see Howard Dean-McGovern get the nom. His recent comments on Israel and his calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers" won;t serve him well. And BTW, he is too liberal.
4. The economy is improving. Sorry to tell you that. Or, haven;t you noticed the candidates have stopped focusing on the economy as much?
5. Iraq is in far better shape than it was. The cost, while involving hundreds of American lives, was very low when the magnitude of the task is considered. We've lost 300 people taking over an entire country. Quagmire!
Wow. Very interesting blog entry from Katrina vanden Huevel: "Wesley Clark's 'High Noon' Moment." What's impressive is that Clark wrote an entire book on the importance of international alliances despite the incident in question.
Two things: (unrelated to the story)
1. I'm guessing that Clark is actually to the left of Howard Dean (the real Howard Dean)
2. Despite his late entry, I think Clark can still catch up to frontrunner Dean.
I was just having some fun with your post; I don't feel like getting drawn into a big argument right now. However, the right have been shamelessly flogging this one particular piece of bullshit recently and I can't resist the urge to address it:
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
His recent comments on Israel and his calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers" won;t serve him well.
The right-wing spin here is that Dean is "legitimizing" a terrorist organization by referring to them as "soldiers." Not surprisingly, they've managed to omit both the context in which Dean made this statement, as well as the remainder of the sentence itself. Dean was responding to specific questions on the Middle East (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Asked if he would oppose the Israeli policy of selectively killing leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, Dean said, "I think no one likes to see violence of any kind."
But he also said that "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war."
Far from "legitimizing" Hamas, Dean was actually excusing Israel's assassination policy on Hamas leaders! He was saying that, as "soldiers" waging war in the Middle East, Hamas needs to accept that they're gonna get killed and stop whining about it! The right would have you believe that Dean is some kind of terrorist sympathizer by misquoting a statement indicating precisely the opposite sentiment! Lies and the lying liars who tell them...
Bush is screwed! His polls are down! Clark's getting in! Dean is soaring! The economy is tanking! We're in a quagmire! Bush is a miserable failure!
Go DEMS!
Wow I think you've got it! I was worried about you just sitting alone in that tiny room with that uncomfortable jacket. Just sitting there mumbling to yourself " Bush must win. He can't lose! Polls lying.........ughhh! " I'm glad you've seen the light.
3. Bush and Co. would like nothing more than to see Howard Dean-McGovern get the nom. His recent comments on Israel and his calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers" won;t serve him well. And BTW, he is too liberal.
4. The economy is improving. Sorry to tell you that. Or, haven;t you noticed the candidates have stopped focusing on the economy as much?
5. Iraq is in far better shape than it was. The cost, while involving hundreds of American lives, was very low when the magnitude of the task is considered. We've lost 300 people taking over an entire country. Quagmire!
6. I don't think Bush is gay.
OMG! His wartime lying you mean!
The economy isn't improving enough. Sorry to tell you that. And now he wants more money for this farsical idea about Iraq.
Well this is a slap in the face of american intelligence. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. They're's starting to catch on SDW get used to it!
Iraq is a quagmire and we will be paying for it for years. More money down the tubes!
I'd love to see a series of unrehearsed debates between Clark and Bush. The 4-Star general, ex NATO supreme commander and Vietnam combat veteran with degrees in politics economics and philosophy, with a 34 year military career takes on the deserter who went AWOL for a year and lied to the military about his health.
Quote:
2. It very well MAY be too late Clark
Bobby Kennedy entered the race relatively later...and was doing just fine before he was assassinated.
Quote:
3. Bush and Co. would like nothing more than to see Howard Dean-McGovern get the nom. His recent comments on Israel and his calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers" won;t serve him well.
Calling Hamas "soldiers" is no less realistic than calling the IDF "terrorists". It all depends what side you're coming from. If you're a regular Palestinian family whose home has been razed by IDF bulldozers and half the members machine-gunned to death, (as happens every day in the occupied territories unreported in the western media), then the IDF are terrorists. If you're an Israeli family and a close relative has been blown to pieces by a Hamas suicide bomber on a bus, then you're going to regard Hamas as terrorists. The extremists on both sides of the dispute are regarded as both soldiers and terrorists.
Quote:
And BTW, he is too liberal.
Anyone left of Genghis Khan is too liberal for you SDW!
Quote:
4. The economy is improving. Sorry to tell you that. Or, haven;t you noticed the candidates have stopped focusing on the economy as much?
Oh really now? Just tell that to the 2.6 million people who have been thrown out of work since the Bush junta started. And a $0.5 TRILLION deficit run up in 2 years??? Just because those Wall St. indices have risen a tad doesn't say *anything* about the health of the economy.
Quote:
5. Iraq is in far better shape than it was.
BS. The Bush admin. primarily used the Iraq situation to demonstrate American firepower to the world. There was no thought put into rebuilding the destruction to Iraq's infrastructure by the bombing, so much of Iraq is still without reliable essential services. Anti American sentiment is rife, terrorists and foreign mercenaries are moving in, as well as an ongoing guerrilla campaign against US troops. 4000 US troops have been injured (according to an army colonel at Bethesda who says that the 4000 he's been aware of is probably half the actual total). The gross miscalculations and blind stupidity of the policy have now resulted in a request for another $87 billion for the war effort (read $$black hole, or corporate welfare for big business close to the admin) in Iraq and 60% of the American people now disapprove. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaida are regrouping, and things are no better there with puppet Karzai (except in the Kabul district) and the opium harvest is at record levels.
Quote:
The cost, while involving hundreds of American lives, was very low when the magnitude of the task is considered. We've lost 300 people taking over an entire country.
It's been going on a mere 6 months, and swallowed up $$ 150 billion, so far, with NO END is sight. 300 dead US troops, so far. What's it going to be in a year, or 18 months? How many more bombings and firefights represents "acceptable" losses? Some parties have suggested the presence in Iraq may last 10 years or more. Commentator Col. Hackworth even suggests 30 years.
Quote:
Quagmire!
Whatever. Try quicksand.
Quote:
6. I don't think Bush is gay.
Gay? Ask Laura.
War on terrorism? It's pathetic, ineffective and expensive. He calls it a war on tourism, and that's about all it's good for. Jerks.
Are we any safer now, SDW?????
Q: out of the 535 members of Congress and the Senate, guess how many have kids in the armed services?
A: One. Just One. Perhaps thats why they rolled over in support of those serial liars in the White House.
I was just having some fun with your post; I don't feel like getting drawn into a big argument right now. However, the right have been shamelessly flogging this one particular piece of bullshit recently and I can't resist the urge to address it:
Speaking of bullshit. Dean hasn't been attacked solely by the right. In fact most of the attacks on him regarding the Middle East have been from members of his own party. Lieberman, Kerry and Pelosi have attacked him on this.
Quote:
... Far from "legitimizing" Hamas, Dean was actually excusing Israel's assassination policy on Hamas leaders! He was saying that, as "soldiers" waging war in the Middle East, Hamas needs to accept that they're gonna get killed and stop whining about it! The right would have you believe that Dean is some kind of terrorist sympathizer by misquoting a statement indicating precisely the opposite sentiment! Lies and the lying liars who tell them...
Well then! If he wants to call them soldiers, he should be accusing Hamas of war crimes. In other words, he wasn't really being as tough on Hamas as you want us to believe.
You mean...two guys campaigning against Dean have actually spoken out against Dean? Great scott!
First of all, I listed THREE people - one of whom, Pelosi, is not running against Dean. Secondly, Josef K. tried to present these attacks as coming from the right. None of the three I mentioned are right wing.
Speaking of bullshit. Dean hasn't been attacked solely by the right. In fact most of the attacks on him regarding the Middle East have been from members of his own party. Lieberman, Kerry and Pelosi have attacked him on this.Well then! If he wants to call them soldiers, he should be accusing Hamas of war crimes. In other words, he wasn't really being as tough on Hamas as you want us to believe.
Bullshit is bullshit, point of origin notwithstanding. No, the attacks on Dean are not coming exclusively from the right, but from a few on the "left" as well- principally Kerry and Lieberman. Of course, Lieberman is a dick (the "Dean Depression"? wtf?) and has been a more effective voice for the Republicans than...well, the Republicans. Kerry's comments were hyperbolic and absurd:
"In going out of his way to term members of Hamas as `soldiers,' Gov. Dean insults the memory of every innocent man, woman and child killed by these suicidal murderers," Kerry said.
"Going out of his way"??? Christ, that's ridiculous.
Look, Dean was giving a direct answer to a question about whether Israel should be killing Hamas leaders and Dean basically said "YES, kill the bastards." Instead of accepting this rather obvious and straightforward response, Kerry, Lieberman, a few other Dems and most Repubs are "going out of their way" to engage in the worst kind of petty and captious FUD-mongering imaginable by hyper-analyzing Dean's language and reading bullshit into his statements which he clearly did not intend.
As deplorable as the Bush admin maybe, I do not see a viable alternative presented by the Dems other than Clark. Too bad I don't think he will run.
My Dream Ticket, would never happen cuz it is candidates from both parties, Clark and McCain. At one time in US History it was possible to have a Pres. and a Veep. of two diff. parties.
The reason I don't see the Dems taking the oval office in '04 is that they can't seem to focus, they seem to spend as much time fighting each other as they do the GOP.
The reason I don't see the Dems taking the oval office in '04 is that they can't seem to focus, they seem to spend as much time fighting each other as they do the GOP.
First of all, I listed THREE people - one of whom, Pelosi, is not running against Dean. Secondly, Josef K. tried to present these attacks as coming from the right. None of the three I mentioned are right wing.
So aside from the Republicans and those running against Dean, you've found one example of someone without an obvious ulterior motive for reprimanding Dean's statement.
As deplorable as the Bush admin maybe, I do not see a viable alternative presented by the Dems other than Clark. Too bad I don't think he will run.
Actually, most reports suggest that he will run, but we should definitely know by the end of the week. Keep your fingers crossed...
Quote:
Originally posted by LiquidR
My Dream Ticket, would never happen cuz it is candidates from both parties, Clark and McCain. At one time in US History it was possible to have a Pres. and a Veep. of two diff. parties.
I think you wouldn't see a Clark/McCain ticket not because they're from different parties, but because McCain and Kerry are close friends. A Kerry/McCain ticket would be much more likely, but the more I see Kerry on the campaign trail, the less enthusiastic I feel about him.
Comments
Go DEMS!
Go Repubs!
We should know sept 19th. That's when clarke is expected to announce...
*I don't know exactly when but it was before Princess Katie went crying like a little girl to the mods and started getting posters banned.(
....and in the process made posting in this forum less fun
Originally posted by Josef K.
Bush is GOD! He's our wildly popular war-time president! It's too late for Clark! Dean is a McGovernite far-left liberal! The economy is surging into the stratosphere on the wings of the Bush tax cuts! We've liberated the Iraqi people and defeated the evildoers! I want Bush to be the father of my children!
Go Repubs!
1. Bush's war time leadership will benefit him.
2. It very well MAY be too late Clark
3. Bush and Co. would like nothing more than to see Howard Dean-McGovern get the nom. His recent comments on Israel and his calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers" won;t serve him well. And BTW, he is too liberal.
4. The economy is improving. Sorry to tell you that. Or, haven;t you noticed the candidates have stopped focusing on the economy as much?
5. Iraq is in far better shape than it was. The cost, while involving hundreds of American lives, was very low when the magnitude of the task is considered. We've lost 300 people taking over an entire country. Quagmire!
6. I don't think Bush is gay.
Originally posted by Eugene
See, I rank Kerry as very viable because he can easily dip into his wife's Heinz money...
He'll only use that if he's falling behind in the polls.
Strictly catch-up money.
Bu-dum-ching!
Two things: (unrelated to the story)
1. I'm guessing that Clark is actually to the left of Howard Dean (the real Howard Dean)
2. Despite his late entry, I think Clark can still catch up to frontrunner Dean.
Originally posted by 709
Strictly catch-up money.
Best. Post. Ever.
Originally posted by SDW2001
His recent comments on Israel and his calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers" won;t serve him well.
The right-wing spin here is that Dean is "legitimizing" a terrorist organization by referring to them as "soldiers." Not surprisingly, they've managed to omit both the context in which Dean made this statement, as well as the remainder of the sentence itself. Dean was responding to specific questions on the Middle East (emphasis mine):
Asked if he would oppose the Israeli policy of selectively killing leaders of Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups, Dean said, "I think no one likes to see violence of any kind."
But he also said that "there is a war going on in the Middle East, and members of Hamas are soldiers in that war, and, therefore, it seems to me that they are going to be casualties if they are going to make war."
Far from "legitimizing" Hamas, Dean was actually excusing Israel's assassination policy on Hamas leaders! He was saying that, as "soldiers" waging war in the Middle East, Hamas needs to accept that they're gonna get killed and stop whining about it! The right would have you believe that Dean is some kind of terrorist sympathizer by misquoting a statement indicating precisely the opposite sentiment! Lies and the lying liars who tell them...
Originally posted by SDW2001
Bush is screwed! His polls are down! Clark's getting in! Dean is soaring! The economy is tanking! We're in a quagmire! Bush is a miserable failure!
Go DEMS!
Wow I think you've got it! I was worried about you just sitting alone in that tiny room with that uncomfortable jacket. Just sitting there mumbling to yourself " Bush must win. He can't lose! Polls lying.........ughhh! " I'm glad you've seen the light.
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Bush's war time leadership will benefit him.
2. It very well MAY be too late Clark
3. Bush and Co. would like nothing more than to see Howard Dean-McGovern get the nom. His recent comments on Israel and his calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers" won;t serve him well. And BTW, he is too liberal.
4. The economy is improving. Sorry to tell you that. Or, haven;t you noticed the candidates have stopped focusing on the economy as much?
5. Iraq is in far better shape than it was. The cost, while involving hundreds of American lives, was very low when the magnitude of the task is considered. We've lost 300 people taking over an entire country. Quagmire!
6. I don't think Bush is gay.
OMG! His wartime lying you mean!
The economy isn't improving enough. Sorry to tell you that. And now he wants more money for this farsical idea about Iraq.
Well this is a slap in the face of american intelligence. Fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me. They're's starting to catch on SDW get used to it!
Iraq is a quagmire and we will be paying for it for years. More money down the tubes!
I don't think Bush is gay either.
Bush is going down!
Get used to it!
Originally posted by SDW2001
1. Bush's war time leadership will benefit him.
I'd love to see a series of unrehearsed debates between Clark and Bush. The 4-Star general, ex NATO supreme commander and Vietnam combat veteran with degrees in politics economics and philosophy, with a 34 year military career takes on the deserter who went AWOL for a year and lied to the military about his health.
2. It very well MAY be too late Clark
Bobby Kennedy entered the race relatively later...and was doing just fine before he was assassinated.
3. Bush and Co. would like nothing more than to see Howard Dean-McGovern get the nom. His recent comments on Israel and his calling Hamas terrorists "soldiers" won;t serve him well.
Calling Hamas "soldiers" is no less realistic than calling the IDF "terrorists". It all depends what side you're coming from. If you're a regular Palestinian family whose home has been razed by IDF bulldozers and half the members machine-gunned to death, (as happens every day in the occupied territories unreported in the western media), then the IDF are terrorists. If you're an Israeli family and a close relative has been blown to pieces by a Hamas suicide bomber on a bus, then you're going to regard Hamas as terrorists. The extremists on both sides of the dispute are regarded as both soldiers and terrorists.
And BTW, he is too liberal.
Anyone left of Genghis Khan is too liberal for you SDW!
4. The economy is improving. Sorry to tell you that. Or, haven;t you noticed the candidates have stopped focusing on the economy as much?
Oh really now? Just tell that to the 2.6 million people who have been thrown out of work since the Bush junta started. And a $0.5 TRILLION deficit run up in 2 years??? Just because those Wall St. indices have risen a tad doesn't say *anything* about the health of the economy.
5. Iraq is in far better shape than it was.
BS. The Bush admin. primarily used the Iraq situation to demonstrate American firepower to the world. There was no thought put into rebuilding the destruction to Iraq's infrastructure by the bombing, so much of Iraq is still without reliable essential services. Anti American sentiment is rife, terrorists and foreign mercenaries are moving in, as well as an ongoing guerrilla campaign against US troops. 4000 US troops have been injured (according to an army colonel at Bethesda who says that the 4000 he's been aware of is probably half the actual total). The gross miscalculations and blind stupidity of the policy have now resulted in a request for another $87 billion for the war effort (read $$black hole, or corporate welfare for big business close to the admin) in Iraq and 60% of the American people now disapprove. In Afghanistan, the Taliban and al Qaida are regrouping, and things are no better there with puppet Karzai (except in the Kabul district) and the opium harvest is at record levels.
The cost, while involving hundreds of American lives, was very low when the magnitude of the task is considered. We've lost 300 people taking over an entire country.
It's been going on a mere 6 months, and swallowed up $$ 150 billion, so far, with NO END is sight. 300 dead US troops, so far. What's it going to be in a year, or 18 months? How many more bombings and firefights represents "acceptable" losses? Some parties have suggested the presence in Iraq may last 10 years or more. Commentator Col. Hackworth even suggests 30 years.
Quagmire!
Whatever. Try quicksand.
6. I don't think Bush is gay.
Gay? Ask Laura.
War on terrorism? It's pathetic, ineffective and expensive. He calls it a war on tourism, and that's about all it's good for. Jerks.
Are we any safer now, SDW?????
Q: out of the 535 members of Congress and the Senate, guess how many have kids in the armed services?
A: One. Just One. Perhaps thats why they rolled over in support of those serial liars in the White House.
************
General Clark, your country *NEEDS* you, NOW
Originally posted by Josef K.
I was just having some fun with your post; I don't feel like getting drawn into a big argument right now. However, the right have been shamelessly flogging this one particular piece of bullshit recently and I can't resist the urge to address it:
Speaking of bullshit. Dean hasn't been attacked solely by the right. In fact most of the attacks on him regarding the Middle East have been from members of his own party. Lieberman, Kerry and Pelosi have attacked him on this.
... Far from "legitimizing" Hamas, Dean was actually excusing Israel's assassination policy on Hamas leaders! He was saying that, as "soldiers" waging war in the Middle East, Hamas needs to accept that they're gonna get killed and stop whining about it! The right would have you believe that Dean is some kind of terrorist sympathizer by misquoting a statement indicating precisely the opposite sentiment! Lies and the lying liars who tell them...
Well then! If he wants to call them soldiers, he should be accusing Hamas of war crimes. In other words, he wasn't really being as tough on Hamas as you want us to believe.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Lieberman, Kerry and Pelosi have attacked him on this.
You mean...two guys campaigning against Dean have actually spoken out against Dean? Great scott!
Originally posted by bunge
You mean...two guys campaigning against Dean have actually spoken out against Dean? Great scott!
First of all, I listed THREE people - one of whom, Pelosi, is not running against Dean. Secondly, Josef K. tried to present these attacks as coming from the right. None of the three I mentioned are right wing.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Speaking of bullshit. Dean hasn't been attacked solely by the right. In fact most of the attacks on him regarding the Middle East have been from members of his own party. Lieberman, Kerry and Pelosi have attacked him on this.Well then! If he wants to call them soldiers, he should be accusing Hamas of war crimes. In other words, he wasn't really being as tough on Hamas as you want us to believe.
Bullshit is bullshit, point of origin notwithstanding. No, the attacks on Dean are not coming exclusively from the right, but from a few on the "left" as well- principally Kerry and Lieberman. Of course, Lieberman is a dick (the "Dean Depression"? wtf?) and has been a more effective voice for the Republicans than...well, the Republicans. Kerry's comments were hyperbolic and absurd:
"In going out of his way to term members of Hamas as `soldiers,' Gov. Dean insults the memory of every innocent man, woman and child killed by these suicidal murderers," Kerry said.
"Going out of his way"??? Christ, that's ridiculous.
Look, Dean was giving a direct answer to a question about whether Israel should be killing Hamas leaders and Dean basically said "YES, kill the bastards." Instead of accepting this rather obvious and straightforward response, Kerry, Lieberman, a few other Dems and most Repubs are "going out of their way" to engage in the worst kind of petty and captious FUD-mongering imaginable by hyper-analyzing Dean's language and reading bullshit into his statements which he clearly did not intend.
My Dream Ticket, would never happen cuz it is candidates from both parties, Clark and McCain. At one time in US History it was possible to have a Pres. and a Veep. of two diff. parties.
The reason I don't see the Dems taking the oval office in '04 is that they can't seem to focus, they seem to spend as much time fighting each other as they do the GOP.
Originally posted by LiquidR
The reason I don't see the Dems taking the oval office in '04 is that they can't seem to focus, they seem to spend as much time fighting each other as they do the GOP.
That's how primaries look in the early stages.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
First of all, I listed THREE people - one of whom, Pelosi, is not running against Dean. Secondly, Josef K. tried to present these attacks as coming from the right. None of the three I mentioned are right wing.
So aside from the Republicans and those running against Dean, you've found one example of someone without an obvious ulterior motive for reprimanding Dean's statement.
Originally posted by LiquidR
As deplorable as the Bush admin maybe, I do not see a viable alternative presented by the Dems other than Clark. Too bad I don't think he will run.
Actually, most reports suggest that he will run, but we should definitely know by the end of the week. Keep your fingers crossed...
Originally posted by LiquidR
My Dream Ticket, would never happen cuz it is candidates from both parties, Clark and McCain. At one time in US History it was possible to have a Pres. and a Veep. of two diff. parties.
I think you wouldn't see a Clark/McCain ticket not because they're from different parties, but because McCain and Kerry are close friends. A Kerry/McCain ticket would be much more likely, but the more I see Kerry on the campaign trail, the less enthusiastic I feel about him.
Clark in 2004!