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.
I'm not even certain that Pelosi did criticize Dean over the "soldiers" comment. Pelosi criticized Dean last week over some earlier statements he made about Israel, but I can't find anything from Pelosi on google concerning the "soldiers" comment. And they did reach accord on their other disagreement:
Quote:
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean have cleared the air and decided they agree about the United States' role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Dean, a former Vermont governor, called Pelosi Thursday after hearing that she had signed a letter objecting to his comment that the United States should "not take sides" in the Middle East dispute. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the two agreed that the United States should be an honest broker, but must remain committed to Israel's right to exist.
"She had a good conversation with him yesterday," Daly said. "We're pleased that he has clarified his position and stated his commitment to Israel's right to exist. This satisfies what we were looking for in our letter."
It's also worth pointing out that just because she isn't running against Dean personally, she doesn't necessarily want him to win the nomination, either.
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.
I found three examples of prominent Dems - people NOT on the right - who criticized Dean. I don't care whether they had obvious motives or not. Most of the noise over this STILL didn't come from the right but from Dean's fellow Dems. Thems just the facts. Defend Dean all day and night, if you want. Doesn't matter to me. When the right does finally go after him, you'll know it.
Don?t know what to think about this. (from the Guardian):
Quote:
No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if Nato's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war...
That report seems to me to be too subjective in what the consequences were. Sounds like Clark got frustrated with the bureacracy tying his hands on dealing with Bosnia. But during that whole time period the US military had their hands tied all aroung the world, I blame Clinton. I doubt that Clark would cause the same problems that the military suffered under Clinton, and at the same time handle Foreign Policy and the deployment of troops more sanely than Bush and with greater strength than Clinton.
I found three examples of prominent Dems - people NOT on the right - who criticized Dean. I don't care whether they had obvious motives or not. Most of the noise over this STILL didn't come from the right but from Dean's fellow Dems. Thems just the facts. Defend Dean all day and night, if you want. Doesn't matter to me. When the right does finally go after him, you'll know it.
I'm not defending Dean, I don't know anything about him.
Joe Biden said it best his weekend on Meet the Press...
can't find the transcript... hasn't been posted yet...
In essence he said that when talking about foreign affairs there's alot of hot-button words you need to avoid like "even-handed" and that you learn that through experience how to carefully word statements... He said that most governors from any state would have the same problems... and that Dean will learn from his mistakes. He also didn't think Dean was wrong in what he's said... he supports Isreal and a strong policy to bring peace.
There's one thing you guys are forgeting. There are a lot of people out there right now that don't like Bush with a vengence. Politicians don't vote for themselves. It's the people who will settle this. Unless the opponent is a total idiot I don't think Bush has a snowball's chance in hell after what he's done.
I know SDW will label this as wishful thinking but I am seeing a growing ( and very angry ) dislike for Bush out there.
Joe Biden said it best his weekend on Meet the Press...
can't find the transcript... hasn't been posted yet...
In essence he said that when talking about foreign affairs there's alot of hot-button words you need to avoid like "even-handed" and that you learn that through experience how to carefully word statements... He said that most governors from any state would have the same problems... and that Dean will learn from his mistakes. He also didn't think Dean was wrong in what he's said... he supports Isreal and a strong policy to bring peace.
I also can't believe we're arguing about Dean semantics after you take a good hard look at the man in the white house. Funny, funny stuff.
I'm certainly not arguing about semantics.... Just making sure what he's said isn't taken out of context... like it was on about 3 or 4 Pundit shows this weekend.
Cheney again this weekend tried to imply a link between Iraq and 9/11... "we just don't know"... when the intelligence community and terrorism experts say we do know there was no link. Remember.... the majority of those terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi.
Cheney again this weekend tried to imply a link between Iraq and 9/11... "we just don't know"... when the intelligence community and terrorism experts say we do know there was no link. Remember.... the majority of those terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi.
Come to think of it, we don't know that there was no link between Canada and 9/11. WE JUST DON'T KNOW!!! I'd say the lack of disconfirmatory evidence that they were involved is enough to go to war. Fückin' Canadians.
Come to think of it, we don't know that there was no link between Canada and 9/11. WE JUST DON'T KNOW!!! I'd say the lack of disconfirmatory evidence that they were involved is enough to go to war. Fückin' Canadians.
According to this article Osama bin Laden called the United Kingdom 260 times, and the UK is where much of al Qaida's planning took place.
I'd say the confirmatory evidence that they were involved is enough to go to war. Fückin' Brits!
Clark is certainly an intriguing candidate. I really hope that as we learn more about him that he still continues to impress as I'm completely underwhelmed by everyone else in the race.
"Would've started a nuclear war with Russia." I love how hypothesis becomes fact. I love how the cold-war with The Soviet Union is applied to post-modern Russia. Got anything better than this?
"He's in tight with Clinton." RUN! Everyone RUN! He's in tight with the Clinton's.
"He followed Janet Reno's orders." Well, that's it. I can't stand any General who follows orders from the Attorney General.
So, the GO's that conducted Gulf War 1 and 2 are to be praised. But, Clarke's war on Milosevic is different? Why? Because it was Clinton's war? Ahhh!
Been doing some surfing around the legitimate and not-so-legitimate news sites and I'm amazed at the negative furvor being drummed up by the conservative media.
Matt Drudge is digging up dirt on his home page. He doesn't site an article or write one himself, just slinging mud around.
msantti is reference three and four year-old articles above, written by hard-core Republican extremists who, in reality, are simply attacking Clinton and trying to find anything they can to tarnish Clarke.
The Weekly Standard refers to Clarke as "another slippery candidate" and proceeds to bash.
Rush Limbaugh lambasted Clarke on his show this morning. Not sure what Hannity railed against, but I'm sure it was similar.
I guess my point is that the neo-cons are pretty worried about this guy. Compared to the dirt that's being dug up on Clarke compared to Dean, they're VERY worried about Clarke as a candidate versus Bush in the general election. He's a genral, he's from the south, he opposed the Iraq war, he's very well spoken, a Rhode's scholar and fought in Vietnam. I guess I'd be digging up anything I could find to.
Keep slinging that mud guys. It's very amusing to watch you guys froth at the mouth (I think I picked that phrase up from SDW somewhere) and get bent out of shape over this one.
Comments
originally posted by bunge
That's how primaries look in the early stages.
Yes, I understand, but the lack of focus for the party seemed have existed before the primary race.
Originally posted by LiquidR
Yes, I understand, but the lack of focus for the party seemed have existed before the primary race.
Yeah, but I think the primary is where a focus is created.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
I'm not even certain that Pelosi did criticize Dean over the "soldiers" comment. Pelosi criticized Dean last week over some earlier statements he made about Israel, but I can't find anything from Pelosi on google concerning the "soldiers" comment. And they did reach accord on their other disagreement:
House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi and Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean have cleared the air and decided they agree about the United States' role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Dean, a former Vermont governor, called Pelosi Thursday after hearing that she had signed a letter objecting to his comment that the United States should "not take sides" in the Middle East dispute. Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly said the two agreed that the United States should be an honest broker, but must remain committed to Israel's right to exist.
"She had a good conversation with him yesterday," Daly said. "We're pleased that he has clarified his position and stated his commitment to Israel's right to exist. This satisfies what we were looking for in our letter."
http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politic...-7000276c.html
It's also worth pointing out that just because she isn't running against Dean personally, she doesn't necessarily want him to win the nomination, either.
Originally posted by bunge
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.
I found three examples of prominent Dems - people NOT on the right - who criticized Dean. I don't care whether they had obvious motives or not. Most of the noise over this STILL didn't come from the right but from Dean's fellow Dems. Thems just the facts. Defend Dean all day and night, if you want. Doesn't matter to me. When the right does finally go after him, you'll know it.
No sooner are we told by Britain's top generals that the Russians played a crucial role in ending the west's war against Yugoslavia than we learn that if Nato's supreme commander, the American General Wesley Clark, had had his way, British paratroopers would have stormed Pristina airport threatening to unleash the most frightening crisis with Moscow since the end of the cold war...
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I found three examples of prominent Dems - people NOT on the right - who criticized Dean. I don't care whether they had obvious motives or not. Most of the noise over this STILL didn't come from the right but from Dean's fellow Dems. Thems just the facts. Defend Dean all day and night, if you want. Doesn't matter to me. When the right does finally go after him, you'll know it.
I'm not defending Dean, I don't know anything about him.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/P...oreign_mideast
Joe Biden said it best his weekend on Meet the Press...
can't find the transcript... hasn't been posted yet...
In essence he said that when talking about foreign affairs there's alot of hot-button words you need to avoid like "even-handed" and that you learn that through experience how to carefully word statements... He said that most governors from any state would have the same problems... and that Dean will learn from his mistakes. He also didn't think Dean was wrong in what he's said... he supports Isreal and a strong policy to bring peace.
I know SDW will label this as wishful thinking but I am seeing a growing ( and very angry ) dislike for Bush out there.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
So here's what Dean's website states his goals and principles on Middle East Peace are.
http://www.deanforamerica.com/site/P...oreign_mideast
Joe Biden said it best his weekend on Meet the Press...
can't find the transcript... hasn't been posted yet...
In essence he said that when talking about foreign affairs there's alot of hot-button words you need to avoid like "even-handed" and that you learn that through experience how to carefully word statements... He said that most governors from any state would have the same problems... and that Dean will learn from his mistakes. He also didn't think Dean was wrong in what he's said... he supports Isreal and a strong policy to bring peace.
I also can't believe we're arguing about Dean semantics after you take a good hard look at the man in the white house. Funny, funny stuff.
Cheney again this weekend tried to imply a link between Iraq and 9/11... "we just don't know"... when the intelligence community and terrorism experts say we do know there was no link. Remember.... the majority of those terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Cheney again this weekend tried to imply a link between Iraq and 9/11... "we just don't know"... when the intelligence community and terrorism experts say we do know there was no link. Remember.... the majority of those terrorists on 9/11 were Saudi.
Come to think of it, we don't know that there was no link between Canada and 9/11. WE JUST DON'T KNOW!!! I'd say the lack of disconfirmatory evidence that they were involved is enough to go to war. Fückin' Canadians.
Originally posted by BRussell
Come to think of it, we don't know that there was no link between Canada and 9/11. WE JUST DON'T KNOW!!! I'd say the lack of disconfirmatory evidence that they were involved is enough to go to war. Fückin' Canadians.
According to this article Osama bin Laden called the United Kingdom 260 times, and the UK is where much of al Qaida's planning took place.
I'd say the confirmatory evidence that they were involved is enough to go to war. Fückin' Brits!
CNN: Clark to launch 2004 presidential bid wednesday.
Fox "News" : Clark to enter presidential contest.
I just read Clark's biography and I'm VERY impressed.
First in class West Point.
Purple Heart in Vietnam.
Rhodes scholar with Master's in Economics, Philosophy and Politics.(Oxford University)
4 star General ex-commander in Chief Nato.
Pretty impressive credentials.
Link #1
Link #2
Link #3
Link #4
Top notch pick guys.
Originally posted by msantti
Here is some linkage about your alls boy wonder, General Wesley Clarke:
Link #1
Link #2
Link #3
Link #4
Top notch pick guys.
"Would've started a nuclear war with Russia." I love how hypothesis becomes fact. I love how the cold-war with The Soviet Union is applied to post-modern Russia. Got anything better than this?
"He's in tight with Clinton." RUN! Everyone RUN! He's in tight with the Clinton's.
"He followed Janet Reno's orders." Well, that's it. I can't stand any General who follows orders from the Attorney General.
So, the GO's that conducted Gulf War 1 and 2 are to be praised. But, Clarke's war on Milosevic is different? Why? Because it was Clinton's war? Ahhh!
Matt Drudge is digging up dirt on his home page. He doesn't site an article or write one himself, just slinging mud around.
msantti is reference three and four year-old articles above, written by hard-core Republican extremists who, in reality, are simply attacking Clinton and trying to find anything they can to tarnish Clarke.
The Weekly Standard refers to Clarke as "another slippery candidate" and proceeds to bash.
Rush Limbaugh lambasted Clarke on his show this morning. Not sure what Hannity railed against, but I'm sure it was similar.
I guess my point is that the neo-cons are pretty worried about this guy. Compared to the dirt that's being dug up on Clarke compared to Dean, they're VERY worried about Clarke as a candidate versus Bush in the general election. He's a genral, he's from the south, he opposed the Iraq war, he's very well spoken, a Rhode's scholar and fought in Vietnam. I guess I'd be digging up anything I could find to.
Keep slinging that mud guys. It's very amusing to watch you guys froth at the mouth (I think I picked that phrase up from SDW somewhere) and get bent out of shape over this one.