Big Dawg defending ShrubCo.? WTF?!!?

[hiphopnation]

What's up with statements like this one?

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,"

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/index.html

Has he gone off the deep end? I don't remember him ever defending this bullshit war. This is news to me. Disturbing news, at that.

:thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown::thumbsdown:

[Massacure]

1. I don't ever remember him defending Bush.

Besides Clinton mentions that he wishes Bush would have spent more time waiting for the U.N.

That is a bad mark for Bush right there.

[disinfo_guy]

28. Didn't Clinton try to invade Iraq during his second term?

Madeline Albright and someone else did a "tour" of college campuses trying to drum up support for an invasion of Iraq? It turned out to be a disaster as anti-war protestors disrupted their events, and students were more likely than not to heckle.

[Hippo_Tron]

44. I don't think Clinton ever tried to invade Iraq...

His policy was containment of Saddam Huseein.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

56. Appropriate username. Sources?

[Tinoire]

61. Post 18 is a start for sources. Besides- what do you consider 8 years

of sanctions and daily bombings if not war? IMHO, the absence of foot soldiers & tanks doesn't make it any less of a war for the people on the ground.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

62. Like it or not, it does make a difference in considering the costs to U.S.

It may not make a difference morally. But part of the real fact of war which is a political act, is the cost. If this war was "cheap" (i.e. one tenth of the Americans being killed who are currently killed, Iraqi oil revenues paying for everything and giving US coffers a bonus), many of the Americans who are now queasy and having doubts would be just as happy to look the other way and wave their little flags from their SUVs.

And their votes would be solidly in Bush's pocket.

This is no doubt what the neocons were counting on--with a cheap and easy "successful" war, that no one would care that the flimsy WMD "evidence" and Al Qaeda ties were fake. They were right about that, but miscalculated on how easily things would go.

So yes, I think Clinton was a pragmatic politician in his use of the military, very conscious of the costs to the country and soldiers, and what these would in turn cost him, politically. Clinton was politically smart if not the most idealistic. His lack of idealism was illustrated in his abandonment of the gays in the military thing in favor of "don't ask don't tell." He was RIGHT on that issue, but felt stung by conservative backlash, settled on a ridiculous and damaging compromise, and never revisited the issue.

I spent the whole of the Clinton administration in the military, and most of the military folks I worked with worshipped Reagan and despised Clinton. I wonder, for those still in, who've been stop-lossed and extended in Iraq, how happy they are with their Republican heroes now, and whether they'd prefer a president like Clinton with a more pragmatic and less ideological approach.

I guess what I'm saying is that even if the effect on the Iraqis was the same (and I'm not at all convinced that that is the case), a large scale invasion and occupation of a sizeable country is a massively expensive undertaking, in treasure and in U.S. lives. (sadly most Americans care nothing at all for the Iraqi lives lost.) Very different from sanctions and other actions taken under Clinton.

[disinfo_guy]

76. heh looks like Tinoire just schooled you

:) Clinton has been a supporter of military action of one kind or another against Iraq during his entire term, and for the last few years. That's not disinfo, that's just the facts, as uncomfortable as they may be.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

82. You didn't support your statement about drumming up INVASION support

on college campuses, "disinfo" guy. That's a pretty big step.

It's a common Right Wing talking point, since the Iraq occupation has "gone sour", to try to minimize the impact of this upon the president (since this awful war is the one "accomplishment" clearly identified with this president) by saying, among other things, that "the policy of regime change in Iraq was initiated under Clinton/Gore".

You are no doubt trying to reinforce this type of talking point with your post above.

It is a laughable statement. If you examine it, it's designed to imply that if Gore had been elected, we would also have invaded Iraq under these kind of circumstances.

There's big difference between being against a government and even advocating that we want a different one, and rushing into an unprovoked war against them. Cuba is a prime example. We have been advocates of "regime change" in that country for generations now with multiple presidents in both parties. Only one initiated any kind of military action with respect to this, and that was indirect action through proxies (Bay of Pigs).

[Tinoire]

87. I think we need to ignore the RW talking points on this one

and go straigh to the jugular. The regime change was begun under Bush Sr. who went to Iraq to let him know who was really in charge after letting Saddaam think that it would be ok to invade Kuwait (hah! dumb Saddaam- Kuwait is a pure US/UK creation & US Protectorate, we would NEVER have let that come under Iraqi control).

Mission accomplish. Saddaam rattled. No need for a regime change because we've put the fear of God into Saddaam. Trouble is, Saddaam won't cave in and just fork his country over and tries to out-slick us so we establish non-UN sanctioned No-Fly zones and an "Oil-for-Food" program designed to scare and starve them into submission. Not only does Saddaam not budge but he starts talking about switching to the Euro which would pump up the EU (which is smarting at the shabby way in which it was treated after footing most of the bill for Gulf I) and put an immediate end to our cushy way of life and our mad path of corporate globalization (which we need the military to enforce and the military needs oil to run on). At the same time Chavez begins to act up. Chavez was ok with us until he too jumps on the Euro bandwagon.

Anyway... what I'm trying to lead up, but this would take all day at the rate I'm going, is that it wouldn't have mattered who the US president was. We were going to go to war regardless because Saddaam was not forking his country's resources over willingly and our country desperately needs to control the world's oil supply and to keep the dollar as OPEC's currency. We can have no tolerance for all this talk of the EURO taking over and the EU controlling things.

Check out Yugoslavia and the routes to the pipelines. That's what these 12 years of war have been about IMO - the US control & dollar domination of oil.

Clinton knew this. That's why he sent that team out to drum up support for an invasion. I think it's AP (our poster) who has the quote on Clinton categorically stating that under his Admin, it was Gore who was the most eager to go and take out Saddaam. War against Iraq was long a goal of the Neos (Conservatives and Liberals). The NeoLiberals in the DLC and the PPI pushed for this war as much as the NeoCons did.

Bush's problem is that he's a cretin and just said "Fuck it, I'm going in" but the plans to do so were there all along. This explains the war votes from the DLC and the TOTAL silence from people like Clinton when he did so. I do think that we would have gone to war under the old Gore (had he won) but it would have been in a more intelligent manner. Less people would have died and we would feel a lot better about why we were waging this war (we still would have been fed a packet of lies but we'd feel better about it). I don't believe that the new Gore, who is so aware to the agenda of the neo-crowd and all their fabricated intelligence would have taken us to war.

Sure Clinton was better for us and for the world. And in a pragmatic sense, you are absolutely correct but a lot of non-Americans got killed by pragmatism.

This is just my take on things from years of watching these people like a hawk and digging everywhere. I could be as mistaken as the next guy though.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

90. Where is the link of evidence that Clinton was looking for support

for an INVASION of Iraq? I've not seen it. This was brought up by "disinfo guy" and you are citing like it is fact. If you show me the proof then you are right and I am wrong, but it's a pretty strong charge.

The OSU thing was about bombings not an invasion so I don't think you have supported that contention. I think that we can all see that there's a pretty freaking huge difference between what we are doing now and what was happening under Clinton.

If I really thought that there would be no difference between what would happen as far as invading Iraq between the Dems and shrub, I would have a LOT less motivation to vote or get others to. I don't believe that at all.

[Tinoire]

99. War plans I can't produce but

It was after all Clinton who signed the NeoCon's Iraq Liberation Act, directing our government to seek to remove Saddam Hussein not Bush.

This war was predicted long before Bush came into office. 8 years ago, my father called me up shortly before he died to tell me where to invest any money I had because the boys in charge were going to start drilling everywhere and start whatever wars they needed to get that oil. If Clinton didn't go in it was, IMO because of a lack of international support, the possiblity of a long drawn out guerilla war, inflaming the fires of ME terrorism, the possibility of the country breaking up along ethnic lines, the difficulty in securing the country’s oil, lack of support within the US, the cost in hundreds of billions of dollars, and a recalcitrant Congress that was attributing his every war move to "wag the dog". Being an intelligent man, that held him back. Bush came in and just said "Screw it, enough of this pussy-footing, I'm going in".

Regime change, domination of the Iraqi oil and an OPEC backed by the US dollar has always been US policy- this under both Bushes and Clinton.

When Albright spoke about 100,000 Iraqis being killed under this new "attack", what would you call that if not war? Bombings that kill up to 100,000 people is war. No nuance in the world can undo that one.

I gave you the articles about drumming up support for the invasion and not getting it thanks to astute Leftists who were watching Washington like hawks. I am not sure how much more you want.

All the information is out there. You just need to look for it honestly, unafraid of what you will find and use it to our advantage, for our good. Right now, I'm not in the right mood to start combing the internet looking for links but this is a start:

====

-- The wars on Afghanistan and Iraq are part of a broader military agenda, which was launched at the end of the Cold War. The ongoing war agenda is a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War and the NATO led wars in Yugoslavia (1991-2001). The war on Iraq has been in the planning stages at least since the mid-1990s. A 1995 National Security document of the Clinton administration stated quite clearly that the objective of the war is oil. "to protect the United States' uninterrupted, secure U.S. access to oil." http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html

===

Before George W. Bush gives the final order to invade Iraq -- a nation that has not threatened the United States -- the American people might want a few facts about the real history of U.S.-Iraq relations. Missing chapters from 1980 to the present would be crucial in judging Bush’s case for war.

<snip>

A Clinton Cover-up?

Beyond that missing history of U.S.-Iraq relations, there’s the secondary issue of cover-ups conducted by the administrations of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush.

Democratic sources say Clinton heeded personal appeals from the elder Bush and other top Republicans to close the books on the so-called “Iraqgate” investigation – as well as probes into secret Reagan-Bush dealings with Iran – soon after the Democrat defeated Bush in the 1992 election.

Some Democrats say Clinton agreed to shelve the investigations out of concern for national security and the country’s unity. Others suggest that Clinton was tricked by the wily elder Bush with promises that a pullback on the Iran-Iraq investigations might win Clinton some bipartisanship with the Republicans in Congress, a tantalizing prospect that turned out to be a mirage.

Whatever the reasons, Clinton’s Justice Department did bail out the Reagan-Bush team in the mid-1990s when more disclosures about the secret dealings with Iraq flooded to the surface. Perhaps the most important disclosure was an affidavit by former Reagan administration official Howard Teicher that was filed in connection with a criminal trial in Miami in 1995. The Teicher affidavit was the first sworn public account by a Reagan insider of the covert U.S.-Iraq relationship.

<snip>

They took their fury out on Teicher, insisting that his affidavit was unreliable and threatening him with dire consequences for coming forward. Yet, while deeming Teicher’s affidavit false, the Clinton administration also declared the document a state secret, classifying it and putting it under court seal. A few copies, however, had been distributed outside the court and the text was soon posted on the Internet.

<snip>

http://www.noiraqwar.org/hist.htm

As a correspondent for the Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s, Robert Parry broke many of the stories now known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

102. Albright did not speak about 100K being killed. The questioner did

and the news article does not support that the administration people agreed that that could be the scope of the slaughter. So I think you are being a little loose with what your posted article says.

And we will have to agree to disagree about there being no difference between the bombing campaigns under Clinton and what were are currently engaged in under shrubco. I feel that if you can't see a difference there there is little hope of our coming to any agreement on this point and I'm sure you feel the same way.

All I can say is I hope you vote for JK in NOV. I can't imagine what you might think you would be accomplishing by voting for Nader, no one, or Bush.

[Tinoire]

108. Actually it was President Carter who said that 100,000 would be killed

that's where that figure came from. How far will you bend to accommodate that? Albright answered the question and this is the same Madame Albright who said that the deaths of half a million Iraqi children from the sanctions was worth it. Here is the exact quote:

MS. WOODRUFF: If I may follow, President Jimmy Carter, former
President Carter was quoted yesterday as saying that up to 100,000
innocent Iraqi civilians could be killed.


(Shouts.)

Is that something, Secretary Albright, that you think is a realistic
possibility?


ALBRIGHT: First of all, let me just say the following thing. I am
willing to make a bet to anyone here that we care more about the Iraqi
people than Saddam Hussein does.


For the last seven years since the Gulf War, he has starved his
people; we have provided food. There is no limit on the amount of
humanitarian assistance that can go in. And I personally wrote the
resolution that allows there to be oil sold for food. So the point
here is that he does not care a fig about his people, and if he does
the totally uncivilized thing of putting women and children to guard
his regime, then the fault is his and not the United States that is
defending the United Nations.

Interestingly enough Albright is lying through her teeth but that's an entire other thread with documentation provided by the Liberal activists who defied the sanctions and went to help the Iraqi people.

Btw, I am finding it very tiresome to see the name Nader pop up everytime someone says something less than complimentary about a Democrat. Democrats are not God, especially not during the age of the DLC.

Did I bring up his name and have you ever seen a post by me saying I would vote for Nader?

The original thread is not about Nader, it's about Clinton's statement: "I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,".

Insults about voting for Nader or even Bush just because someone is willing to say "my party is not pure" do more harm than good.

[disinfo_guy]

97. I saw it myself on TV

Are you really suggesting that this didn't happen? Oh, you are arguing the difference between "invasion" and "bombing". Let's call it an invasion of their airspace? Spilt hairs all you want - I thought the issue was Clinton giving public support to Bush over the war against Iraq, and Clinton's pro-Iraq War public statements?

http://www.firstliberties.com/aint_no_waggin_dog.html

The whole world was watching as Secretary of State, Madeline Albright, Secretary of Defense, William Cohen, and National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, struggled through opening statements while members of the audience frequently interrupted with hoots and jeers. What the administration's merchandisers were attempting to sell was clear. They wanted to convince people that the time to start a bombing campaign is now. But a sizable portion of the crowd wasn't buying their pitch. In a tribute to demonstrations from the sixties, Secretary Albright mused philosophically while protesters boisterously chanted, "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war."

This CNN exclusive was presumably staged to show the world an informed and unified citizenry. Instead it presented a divided, uncivil and generally hostile crowd. In the days to come, the White House will be laboring to answer the question-why did this event fail so miserably?

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

98. I would submit to you that over 100,000 US military personnel in Iraq find

a significant difference between invasion to topple a government and occupy a country, and bombing attacks.

So the answer is, um, yes, and I don't think I'm exactly splitting hairs.

Sheesh.

[Tinoire]

101. So now we're back to my original question

Does it only matter if we're inconvenienced?

What, besides the comfort, of 100,000 US military personnel, is the difference?

Another country is still bombed and occupied; there's not much of a moral difference between US puppets and US soldiers except, again, the inconvenience. Would you really feel better if we had bombed 100,000 to smithereens using high-tech weapons as long as 100,000 of our soldiers weren't inconvenienced? I wouldn't. I'd feel just as bad.

Besides... anyone going in would have had to occupy. After over a decade of being bombed & starved under Bush Sr and Clinton, I don't believe the Iraqi people were going to gleefully go pump that oil for us. Exploitation is exploitation whether it comes with a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs and other people have as much national pride as we do- no one will willingly roll over for that & occupation becomes a necessity.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

103. Making these statements like you just did about what we expect of the oil

is no proof of your contention that we would have invaded under a Dem presidency. My reply to your other post seals that we will have to agree to disagree that there is a BIG difference between the Dem administrations and candidates and shrubco and leave it at that.

There is clearly going to be no "meeting of the minds" on this so we might as well be civil in disagreement.

[Tinoire]

105. BIG difference is stretching it

there is a diffference but it's getting smaller. There's still one and that is due to all the old school Democrats still hanging around.

I simply refuse to assess all the blame to "the other side". That's awfully convenient and all it gets us is a change of who's pointing the fingers every 4/8 years.

But we'll agree to disagree.

[Tinoire]

112. Civilly for sure

No problem on my end.

[disinfo_guy]

107. good point, Tinoire, I misunderstood Mayberry Machiavelli's objection

Mayberry Machiavelli was pointing out that Clinton would have waged war against Iraq in a way that cost fewer casualties. I guess I should have said "escalating military action" instead of "invasion".

So, we all agree that Clinton tried to drum up support for "escalating military action" against Iraq during his second term, and specifically with the administration's "tour" of college campuses, including OSU?

I'll agree to agree on that!

[Tinoire]

106. 20 Feb 1988. Nightline. Madame Albright on WAR with Iraq

MR. KOPPEL: And we're back, once again, from the campus of Ohio State
University, with the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, the
President's National Security Advisor.

Secretary Albright, what, short of complete acquiescence on Saddam
Hussein's part, would be acceptable, would prevent war, at this point?


SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: Ted, I think we have to keep in mind here that
Saddam Hussein is not here to negotiate with the international
community. The Security Council, at the end of the Gulf War, laid out
a set of rules that he had to abide by to open up the sites where the
weapons of mass destruction are. And they created a commission to do
that inspection. What Kofi Annan is going there to talk about is to
make sure that this UNSCOM, this UN inspection unit, can do its job in
an unconditional and open way.


I think, Ted, we have to remember that Saddam Hussein is the one that
created this crisis, and that he has to reverse course. And that's
what Kofi Annan is going to take with him, the message he is going to
deliver.

<snip>

SECRETARY COHEN: I want add to what Mr. Berger just said, it's not
only Saddam Hussein who's at stake here. If we remain indifferent to
what he is up to, and if we turn a blind eye andif we don't take
action in the face of his flouting of the UN Security Council
resolutions, then there is nothing to inhibit Iran from continuing to
amass its chemical and biological weapons, North Korea, Sudan, Libya.
So there's more at stake than just Saddam Hussein, although that's a
very big issue at stake.

We would be sending a signal which would be, I think, unfortunate for
future generations as well. If we show a lack of will; if there is a
lack of discipline; if there is a willingness to enforce the
resolutions through military action if necessary, then I think it's a
very bad signal to the rest of the world.

<snip>

SECRETARY ALBRIGHT: First of all, I really do think that you're
underestimating the international support for this action. We have
been working hard, all of us, and there is support out there.


But let me make the following point; which is that the United States
is the only superpower. We have responsibilities as such. We stand
tall and therefore we can see further. And we are very concerned about
this threat to all our societies, due to weapons of mass destruction.
And if we have to go it alone, we will go it alone. But we are always,
that's kind of where we are in the international system at the moment.
We look for partners; we seek help from others that are like-minded;
we have a lot of help. But ultimately, Ted, we are the United States,
and we are the indispensable power.

MR. KOPPEL: Secretary Cohen, Secretary Albright and Mr. Berger, thank
you very much.


(end transcript)

http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/1998/02/20/98022004_tpo.html

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

120. The action was missiles/bombs. I still don't see where it advocates

invasion and removal of SH. Obviously they always leave that open because the leaders don't restrict their own options. Doesn't prove your point as far as I'm concerned. You can reply but I won't read or respond on this thread anymore.

If you are implying that Clinton, Gore, or John Kerry would have drummed up a propaganda campaign of lies to stampede our country into an unprovoked invasion of Iraq just as Clinton has done, I totally disagree and think that that position has little credibility. Remember, the lies and propaganda were necessary as even with 9/11 the "need" to do this was in no way obvious and the war still had to be "sold".

If you honestly believe that (I don't) then perhaps you really do have little reason to vote for Kerry this fall. But I think it'd be a big mistake on your part. And I hope you do vote with the rest of us.

[Tinoire]

85. It does make a difference in cost to us but us that all it's about?

Your thoughtful post shows that you believe that no more than I do. I was in the military too. For 20 years and all of them were spent as a rebellious Liberal who made it very very clear to my entire chain of command that never would I pick up a rifle and go kill for the MIC. About 3/4 of the people in my immediate circle were non Republicans and the Army had no choice but to put up with it because they couldn't find enough people to replace us. I know what you mean about the Reagan worship. Even the FAIR raise Carter gave us is, to this day, atrributed to Reagan (simply because they got it under him) and that got my goat to no end. I remember full well when Clinton was voted in and Officers and Senior NCOs snickered with the troops and started making all the gay jokes. The amount of insubordination and disrespect to Clinton was appalling. I will never understand why he backed down on gays in the military. There were already a ton of them anyway and all Clinton's policy did was hurt the gays I knew because it went from having to be caught with hard evidence to "telling".

There are a lot of factual realities in your post... "Cost"... "most Americans care nothing at all for the Iraqi lives lost"... 'accepting war as long as we don't suffer'... but that doesn't make it right & my problem is with war, not the cost to the American public. Honestly, I really don't care how painful this is to us. I know it sounds cruel but I am willing for it to hurt us a lot more if it will hurt the rest of the world less. The rest of the world does not owe us a living nor should they have to subsidize our way of life via horrors like NAFTA and FTAA.

A major problem I have with people like Clinton, Clark and Kerry is that they're ok with what Bush is doing, they just don't like the way he's botching things up and exposing the game. As an idealist, that makes me ill. I sometimes, as evil as it sounds, rather have Bush in that case because he's bringing the pus-filled stye to the surface for all to see- it's hard to lance a stye if it's kept below the surface. Clinton is an amazingly intelligent man and very charismatic too. The man was smart & slick enough to convince a tribe of Eskimos, in the middle of winter, that they couldn't live without freezers and air-conditioning but that doesn't make the things he did right. He lucked out by having the dot.com revolution happen on his watch but what did our country do with all of that wealth? More people went homeless, more children went hungry. Executive pay went up and workers pay got stuck in a rut. At the same time Welfare Reform was passed and corporations were given a increasingly freer hand. None of that was good. And let's not forget the war against Yugoslavia which was a fraud from the word go & justified with pictures from a professional PR firm that disappeared from the radar shortly after their work was done. There was no cost of US lives in the war against Yugoslavia and the media was so carefully controlled that we didn't see it, didn't suffer from it so we don't care. That is so wrong...

I am sure that more and more soldiers have turned against Bush. They turned against Rumsfeld a year ago and it was only a matter of time until they caught on to the fact that their "straight-talking cowboy" was a fraud. Thankfully, more of them will vote against Bush (or at least sit out the election).

I'll tell you what Mayberry , I'll be the raging Leftist and you can be the pragmatist. It will take both of us to get out of this mess. I want to live in a world where the evil of war is not defined by the toll it takes on your country but instead on the harm it does to another country.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

86. We're both voting for the same person in NOV and it's not shrub or Nader.

I'm not mad at you. I think Clinton was successful as a president precisely because he was a pragmatist. I think the pragmatist approach causes you to make some unfortunate compromises and immoral decisions though.

I just think that the COST aspect of war (lives and treasure, to the war waging country) is a critical aspect of the political calculations. This is even true for a monarchy or dictatorship--they don't have to worry about votes, but leaning too hard on the peasantry for a bloody war for too long results in the torch wielding mob and battering ram at the door eventually.

I think the war in Iraq is immoral and that that is the best reason to oppose it.

I do realize though, that from a standpoint of winning votes for us and ousting the would be king, that many of the votes that may be swinging our way are from people who are only now "queasy" about the way things are going because it's not "easy". It's just a practical reality of achieving a morally important end, of ousting the would be dictator.

RWers try to make use of the concept that a Dem president would have done this exact same invasion, Clinton, Gore or Kerry also. They don't say it in those words but they try to plant that seed. In other words we'd be in the exact same mess except without tax cuts. I think this is laughable. But it is a point that has to be answered because to the extent that people buy it, it diminishes the negative impact of the Iraq invasion on shrub.

Shrub is the only one with a track record on this. This invasion is HIS abomination. I seriously doubt if even most Republican presidents, who weren't so weak and stupid to allow themselves to be used by the Cheneys and Wolfowitzes of the world, would have made such an error.

Ironically I think that shrub is a pragmatist and not an ideologue too. (I realize more and more I might actually be wrong on this and it scares me.) It's just that he and his adviser Rove concluded at the beginning that the most effective political strategy for them was to govern completely from the right and smash all dissent. They're just crappy pragmatists who made a bad decision. It worked for them through midterms but they have squandered too much credibility and the account is overdrawn going into the election. I really think that if the shrub/Rove thought that ditching the neocons and Iraq war would guarantee them reelection, they'd do it in a minute. It's just that they have made the calculation that having made this error, it's more costly to them to admit error and reverse course than to "stay the course".

I don't think we're really that far apart in our thinking. We are just emphasizing different aspects of the same problem. I'm sure if we met we could have a drink and a laugh and be friends.

[Tinoire]

94. I agree with a lot of what you say

and recognize that I'm not pragmatic. I can't be from having seen close up, a lot of misery in the 3rd world caused by that pragmatism. And it didn't matter who was in charge...

I have no tolerance for most Right Wingers but quite a bit for true Conservatives because they're the only other ones paying attention to the details anymore and willing to own up to the horrible things that happened under their watch. Because of that I try to figure out the angle of the person who makes such allegations- is it just to bash Dems (because in that case claws come out) or is it in a willingness to say "we got here together, now let's get out of it together". Not everyone is bashing when they point some things out and you must admit it took a bi-partisan effort to get here.

Instead of sticking to our guns we kept caving in. The Republicans were just as infiltrated as we were by reps of the Leo Strauss/Scoop Jackson school of thought with the difference that most of them rolled over quietly because they were so focused on mom, God and apple-pie that any old rethoric was good enough. We're still fighting. Where I disagree with, or at least see differently than, you is that I can't cut any slack to those who enable the cancer eating away at both our parties.

Will I vote for Kerry? Most probably even though it is going to hurt like hell. But I won't lay the blame for this entire invasion at Bush's feet. Don't get me wrong- I'm not letting him off the hook- he's too firmly planted there to ever come down but I do blame all the NeoLiberals in my party who enabled him. There is no excuse. Two years ago this place was in an absolute uproar organizing calls, faxes, letters, protests to plead with OUR guys not to vote for IWR because we all knew it was a fraud. We even sent bouquets of flowers to Senator Byrd as a thank you for speaking out. If we knew, why didn't they? Pragmatism is the answer... They knew but were being pragmatic. How can Bush be the only one to blame?

I am going to bite my tongue right now. Not because of you but because my intent is not to let Bush off the hook and I fear that saying anything more would wander into that dangerous territory. But I am angry. I am angry at the people I trusted to watch against this for letting us down so miserably. They took corporate greed into greater account than they took the votes from the Left and instead of fighting to overhaul a corrupt political system, they played the game and just tried to pad things to their advantage.

If not now then when? That is what gets me the angriest.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

100. Wow. You honestly think there is that much equivalency between

the various Dem contenders of recent years and Bushco that you would contemplate not voting for JK and thereby help Bush's election effort?

You honestly think that, say, if Clinton had a 3d term, that he would have drummed up an intense propaganda war of lies to herd the American sheep into supporting a dubious war? The way shrub did? That a Clinton, Gore, or John Kerry press secretary would be teling Americans to "watch what they say, watch what they do?"

If this is to become one of those "there's no difference anyway so why bother to vote for JK" threads I guess there's little point in my continuing to post on it. I figured that's where "disinfo guy" is coming from but I didn't think you were. Oh well.

[Tinoire]

104. How do you think we snowed so many people with Yugoslavia?

For the record, I stated that I do not believe the new Gore would have done that. Gore broke with the DLC and everything they stand for. Gore's problems with the DLC are precisely why they didn't stand behind him in 2000. The man was getting too populist; everytime Gore opened his mouth Lieberman would be phoning corporations the next morning trying to pacify them with assurances of "Don't worry, he didn't mean that".

Gore? I'd trust him implicitly to do the best he could for the American people and the world. The rest of them? Sorry I don't. I'm an old-fashioned Democrat who has no love for the DLC.

Here's more on the Ohio State Tour to drum up support for the war:

Albright was drowned out at one point by a group chanting, "One, two, three, four, we don't want your racist war," as she tried to explain U.S. policy to the audience of 6,000.

The heckling became so intense at one point that Albright interrupted CNN's Judy Woodruff and said, "Could you tell those people I'll be happy to talk to them when this is over. I'd like to make my point."

Similar outbursts greeted Cohen and Berger as they laid out again a U.S. position that is familiar to those who have followed the building crisis in the media.

<snip>

Another major European ally called the meeting "a tactical mistake" by the administration because the show was almost certainly seen in Iraq and "may have inadvertently given Saddam Hussein good cheer."

But the diplomats also said they didn't think the meeting changed the minds of any of the U.S.' allies.

http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9802/18/town.meeting.folo/

[ldf]

84. i imagine the people on the ground

could very quickly explain to you the differences between the sanctions/precision bombings of pre 9-11 to what is going on today.

[greatauntoftriplets]

2. He "supports Bush's decision to go to war"?

God.

[David Dunham]

3. Clinton should keep his mouth shut about Iraq. He only hurts Dems.

[Sirveri]

7. Gore should keep his mouth shut, his yelling only hurts dems.

[Kadie]

4. Did you read this part?

That's why I supported the Iraq thing. There was a lot of stuff unaccounted for," Clinton said in reference to Iraq and the fact that U.N. weapons inspectors left the country in 1998.

"So I thought the president had an absolute responsibility to go to the U.N. and say, 'Look, guys, after 9/11, you have got to demand that Saddam Hussein lets us finish the inspection process.' You couldn't responsibly ignore a tyrant had these stocks," Clinton said.

Pressed on whether the Iraq war was worth the cost to the United States, Clinton said he would not have undertaken the war until after U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix "finished his job."

and...
"I want it to have been worth it, even though I didn't agree with the timing of the attack," Clinton said.

[seabeyond]

i have heard clinton defend bushie boy

and say wtf.......each and everytime. jsut havent heard it of late and felt much better

yup

clinton was a to the right kinda guy, wink

[Delano]

5. Clinton was never a liberal.

He never had a problem with this war, nor did Hillary. Did you people forget her IWR vote?

I don't begrudge them for being center-righht dems, but that is what they are. I son't know why people are surprised at this sort of thing.

I found Clinton vastly preferable to Bushco, but I'd still prefer a real democrat in office.

[lgardengate]

6. Your Sig Line...

The sig line about "needing" hate kind of disturbes me.How can we accuse the RW of being hatefull if we are guilty of the same.
IMO we lose the moral high ground and just get down in the mud with the other pigs if we embrace hate ourselves.

[Union Thug]

Guilty as charged...

I hate the right wing, corporate whores that are running the show.. I HATE them. What's wrong with that? Am I supposed to pretend like I have any kind feelings for these assholes? F* 'em.

[ClassWarrior]

52. Love your sig.

You wouldn't be a... famous... Will W., would you?

[hiphopnation]

27. Have you read Jean Genet?

if not, you should. You may understand a statement like the one in my sig line a little better.

On another note, do statements like this one by the big dawg make you angry? They make me angry. And that anger propels me to act. See how that works?

[mike_c]

8. Clinton was just as invested in the "evil Saddam" meme...

...as Bushco. Remember Madeline Albright's comment that "500,000 dead Iraqi children was a price we were willing to pay?" Clinton segued right into an ill-conceived foreign policy on Iraq after taking over from the recently "victorious" Poppy. He continued and enforced the sanctions, the no-fly zones, and the bombing campaigns. Let's be clear about something-- Democrats are as complicit as repigs in the disaster we've created in Iraq. Our presumptive presidential candidate favored the invasion and supports continuing the occupation. Clinton's current statements are just more of the same.

[Curious Dave]

9. yes but....

At least Clinton and Kerry don't have the same financial profit motive driving them that is influencing BFEE/Haliburton. Right or wrong at least our party's representatives have decent motives by comparison.

[4MoreYearsOfHell]

11. Nor are they associaed with any of the

PNAC signees...

[Hornito]

31. Not associated with the PNAC'ers? They certainly are .....

associated with the right-wing Zionist cabal currently ruling Israel. Kerry, and both the Clintons, have been unapologetic and consistent backers of the Sharon/Likud regime. Sharon and his Likudnazis wanted the Iraq war in the worst way, and lobbied for it heavily, both in the Congress, and vis a vis their operatives in PNAC (Wolfowitz, Perle, Abrams, Bolton, et al). Looked at that way, they DO have a PNAC association, and have marched lock-step with the PNAC'ers on many issues. And btw, James Woolsey, one of the more radical, wacko PNAC'ers, was Clinton's CIA chief. Go figure......

[kiahzero]

38. Interesting logic

Isn't that the same thinking that implies al Qaeda and Saddam were working together?

Clinton supports Israel... the current government of Israel wanted the Iraq War... PNAC wanted the Iraq War... therefore, Clinton is associated with PNAC.

In case you've forgotten, PNAC pushed Clinton to invade Iraq. Clinton didn't... is that your definition of marching in lock-step?

[Hornito]

46. I stand by my statement. As far as Clinton not invading during

his term........., had he not ruined his political capital, and would be seen as "wagging the dog", I'll bet anything he would have invaded as well. The Clintons are DLC right-wingers, allied with the most right-wing elements of our Party. This group includes such hard-core Sharon/Likud/Iraq War backers as Al From, Joe Lieberman (who just appeared on Hannity to promote the war and Bush's actions), Evan Bayh, Zell Miller, John Breaux, and other well known DINOs.

[kiahzero]

48. Oh, OK

Clinton was willing to be accused of wagging the dog over Afghanistan, by the very people you're claiming he was allied with, but not willing to invade Iraq, because those same people, who wanted him to invade Iraq, would criticize him for wagging the dog.

Interesting concept of reality.

[Hornito]

51. "Interesting concept of reality."

We all have our own. I like mine.

[mountainvue]

42. Can we

do away with the term "marched lock step"? It's starting to sound a bit ridiculous. Sorry, I'm off topic.

[Tinoire]

54. You're joking right? The DLC had PNAC signatories. Will Marshall

Will Marshall, advisor to Kerry, signed several PNAC documents. Both the people from the DLC and the PNAC are followers of Leo Strauss and Scoop Jackson. Richard Perle to this day is still a registered Democrat. Joe Lieberman is a fine representative of the DLC- as a matter of fact he is head of one of their sister movements the NDN.

The PPI which is the policy arm of the DLC is working off the same agenda as the neoCons minus a few breadcrumbs to Liberals. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=110&topic_id=80

===

The neo-cons have been putting their cabal together for many, many years and they have covered a lot of bases. They developed unholy alliances in the media, military, foreign governments, corporate world and have taken the Republican party to a place many traditional Republicans find uncomfortable. And, through the DLC, have infiltrated the Democratic party as well.

Will Marshall was the policy director for the DLC and is the president and founder of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), which was formed to create policy for the DLC. The DLC and PPI are very intertwined. Al From, DLC founder, is the chairman of PPI. The DLC website shows joint contact info for both organizations and the same person answers the phone for both (202-547-0001 PPI, 202-546-0007 DLC). The press e-mail for both DLC and PPI is [e-mail]

Will Marshall was one of the select people who actually signed the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) statements on post war Iraq, along with a few frequent Blueprint authors (the DLC magazine).
PNAC has been issuing official statements since it's inception, each signed by about 1-3 dozen select people including Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush, Richard Perle, William Kristol
and Frank Carlucci (of the Carlyle Group). Mr. Marshall doesn't just agree with them, he is intimately involved with them.

Mr. Marshall is also an advisor to the Committee to Liberate Iraq (CLI), who's mission is to "engage in educational and advocacy efforts" in support of liberating the Iraqi people. Translation: it serves as another "authority" to support the PNAC agenda, which it does very well. CLI is loaded with PNAC'ers, including 3 of the board of directors.

Although Will Marshall (and the rest of the DLC/PPI) has been pushing a slightly sanitized, politically correct neo-con-lite agenda for years, it is just recently that he came out of the closet with his official PNAC/CLI affiliations. The PNAC statements he signed were released in March 2003 and CLI was formed in the fall of 2002. Like many of the neo-cons, he seems to be more brazen and open than ever before.

I'm sure at least some of the New Democrats (what DLC members are called) joined on for funding support and without really appreciating what the DLC's agenda and affiliations really are. Most of the DLC's message is spun to sound like it challenges Bush, but look at the core messages and you find them more closely aligned with the neo-cons than it appears on the surface.

When you realize this, Congressional Democratic support for the Bush administration's policies (out of control military budget, tax cuts, rampant privatization and corporatization and war, war, war) makes more sense. Btw, membership in the New Democrat Network (what the DLC membership is called) is cheap (about $50.00) but not easy. Prospective members are thoroughly screened. Here is a description of their process from Robert Dreyfuss in the 4/23/01 issue of The American Prospect (link below):

"To ensure that liberals don't slip through the cracks, NDN requires each politician who seeks entree to its largesse and contacts to fill out a questionnaire that asks his or her views on trade, economics, education, welfare reform, and other issues. The questions are detailed, forcing candidates to state clearly whether or not they support views associated with the New Democrat Coalition, and it concludes by asking, "Will you join the NDC when you come to Congress?" Next, (Simon) Rosenberg interviews each candidate, and then NDN determines which candidacies are viable before providing financial support."

Here is some of what the Blueprint (the DLC magazine) had to say right after 9/11:

America's New Mission
By Will Marshall The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3916


The Case Against Saddam
By Khidir Hamza The Blueprint Magazine 11/15/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?&kaid=124&subid=307&contentid=3926


Here is one from well before the 9/11 attacks:

Why it's Time to Revolutionize the Military
By James R. Blaker and Steven J. Nider The Blueprint Magazine 2/17/01

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=124&subid=159&contentid=2980


And a more recent piece:

Activists Are Out of Step
By Al From and Bruce Reed Originally in LA Times 7/3/03

http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=251866&kaid=85&subid=65

------------------------

The Blueprint speaks and you can hardly see Richard Perle's lips move.

It is difficult to make the American public understand the danger in all of this and why the DLC must be exposed. Most people have never even heard of PNAC or the DLC.

DU'ers have the advantage of understanding what these organizations are and what power and influence they hold. Because of that advantage, we have a responsibility to share our knowledge and use our numbers to expose these people for what they are.

The New Democrat Network directory includes not just Washington Dems, but state and local politicians as well. Please, check the directory and see if any of your elected officials are on it. Make them declare their allegiance either to the powers that fund them or the voters who elect them.

Links:

DLC website: http://www.ndol.org /

PPI website: http://www.ppionline.org /

CLI website: http://209.50.252.70/index.shtml

PNAC Iraq statements:
http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-031903.htm

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqstatement-032803.htm

How the DLC Does It
By Robert Dreyfuss The American Prospect 4/23/01

http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

New Democrat Network directory

http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir_action.cfm?viewAll=1


===


I took this from IRC. Fascinating web-site; Noam Chomsky is a http://www.irc-online.org/content/index.php

<snip>

Origins and History of the DLC

<snip>

Pondering the Mondale defeat, a gathering coalition of Southern Democrats and northern neoliberals expressed concerns that the Democratic Party faced extinction, particularly in the South and West, if the party continued to rely on its New Deal message of government intervention and kept catering to traditional constituencies of labor, minorities, and anti-war progressives. In 1985 Al From, an aide to Rep. Gillis Long of Louisiana, took the lead in formulating a new messaging strategy for the party’s centrists, neoliberals, and conservatives. Will Marshall, at that time Long’s policy analyst and speechwriter, worked closely with From to establish the DLC and then became its first policy director. Today, Marshall is president of the Progressive Policy Institute, the DLC think tank he founded. (11)

In his “Saving the Democratic Party” memo of January 1985, From advocated the formation of a “governing council” that would draft a “blueprint” for reforming the party. According to From, the new leadership should aim to create distance from “the new bosses”—organized labor, feminists, and other progressive constituency groups—that were keeping the party from modernizing. From’s memo sparked the formation of the Democratic Leadership Council in early 1985. According to Balz and Brownstein, “Within a few weeks, it counted seventy-five members, primarily governors and members of Congress, most of them from the Sunbelt, and almost all of them white; liberal critics instantly dubbed the group ‘the white male caucus.’” (7)

Although DLC members shared, for the most part, the neoliberal perspective of centrist Democrats such as Gary Hart, Paul Tsongas, and Michael Dukakis, they took a much harsher, conservative stance on social justice and foreign policy issues. Regarding foreign policy, the DLC attempted to resurrect the hard-line anticommunism of Sen. Henry “Scoop” Jackson but rejected the New Deal politics that Jackson and other traditional “New Deal liberals” embraced. In the late 1980s, DLC Democrats supported aid to the contras, applauded President Reagan’s “Evil Empire” rhetoric, and offered their support to those militarists calling for missile defense and rejecting arms control negotiations. While the neoliberals foresaw an end to the cold war, the DLC still viewed the Soviet Union as an unmitigated threat.

In a 1986 conference on the legacy of “Great Society” of the Johnson administration, DLC Chairman Gov. Charles Robb of Virginia took up the neoconservative critique of liberalism first articulated in the early 1970s by Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Norman Podhoretz, and other neoconservatives. According to Robb, “while racial discrimination has by no means vanished from our society, it’s time to shift the primary focus from racism—the traditional enemy without—to self-defeating patterns of behavior—the enemy within.” This speech signaled the end of the “New Politics” of the 1960s and 1970s in the Democratic Party and the rise of a new social conservatism in the party. Robb’s speech opened room for Democratic Party stalwarts to back away from political agendas that proposed government initiatives to address poverty, discrimination, and crime, and to join the traditional conservatives and neoconservatives in opposing affirmative action, social safety-net programs, and job-creation initiatives. Thus, the New Democrats of the DLC added their voices to the chorus of those calling for stiffer sentences, an end to affirmative action, reduced welfare benefits, and less progressive tax policies.

<snip>

Writing shortly before the November 2000 election, John Nichols observed that the DLC had been founded “with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition,” namely, “to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right.” According to Nichols, “the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart.” (9) Although the DLC can rightly claim to have yanked the Democratic Party to the right, it has repeatedly failed to sideline what Progressive Policy Institute President Will Marshall has disparaging labeled “the party traditionalists.” Since its founding the DLC has aimed to subsume all Democrats under its ideological umbrella. But persistent (and resurgent) resistance to neoliberal prescriptions, neoconservative foreign policy, and social conservative domestic policies (((that's us- the old Left!))) has curtailed DLC ambitions and obliged it to operate more as a powerful agenda-setting and lobbying group within the party. In effect, the DLC has focused on controlling the party’s platform and leadership rather than on selling “big tent” politics to all Democratic Party constituencies.

<snip>

<snip> blinded by their own triumphalism, New Democrat ideologues fail to acknowledge that they have fallen in line behind the ills of neoliberals, neoconservatives, militarists, and social conservatives who have transformed the Republican Party over the past three decades. What’s more, the DLC/Progressive Policy Institute has also proved itself an effective shill for transnational Wall Street capitalists, although it faces competition in this role from the Republican Party and its array of affiliated policy institutes and think tanks. Such rightward leanings prompted the America Prospect’s Robert Kuttner to call the DLC the “Republicans’ Favorite Democrats.” (2)

<snip>

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/org/demleadcoun.php



Funding of the DLC and of the Progressive Policy Institute


Corporate contributors

- AT&T Foundation
- Eastman Kodak Charitable Trust
- Prudential Foundation
- Georgia-Pacific Foundation
- Chevron
- Amoco Foundation

The Third Way Foundation (an umbrella group of the New Democrats in the DLC) receives funding from

- the Lynde & Harry Bradley Foundation
- Howard Gilman Foundation
- Ameritech Foundation and General Mills Foundation.

DLC enjoys funding from

- Bank One
- Citigroup
- Dow Chemical
- DuPont
- General Electric
- Health Insurance Corporation
- Merrill Lynch
- Microsoft
- Morgan Stanley
- Occidental Petroleum
- Raytheon


Taken from John Nichols, “Behind the DLC Takeover,” Progressive, October 2000.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/10_64/65952690/print.jhtml

===

Sources:

Sources
(1) New Democrats Online: DLC Biographies: Al From,
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=191&contentid=1131

(2) Robert Kuttner, “Republicans’ Favorite Democrats,” American Prospect, vol. 13, no. 12, July 1, 2002
http://www.prospect.org/print/V13/12/kuttner-r.html

(3) Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Policy, October 30, 2003
http://www.ndol.org/documents/Progressive_Internationalism_1003.pdf

(4) Ralph Nader, “The Corporatist Democratic Leadership Council,” In the Public Interest, August 1, 2003
http://www.nader.org/interest/080103.html

(5) Center for Public Integrity, Silent Partners: New Democrat Network.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/527/search.aspx?act=com&orgid=420

(6) New Democrats Online: New Dem Directory.
http://www.ndol.org/new_dem_dir.cfm

(7) Dan Balz and Ronald Brownstein, Storming the Gates: Protest Politics and the Republican Revival (New York: Little, Brown and Company, 1996), pp. 67-73.

(8) William A. Galston and Elaine Kamarck, The Politics of Evasion, Progressive Policy Institute, 1989.

(9) John Nichols, “Behind the DLC Takeover,” Progressive, October 2000.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1295/10_64/65952690/print.jhtml

(10) Kenneth S. Baer, Reinventing Democrats: The Politics of Liberalism from Reagan to Clinton (University Press of Kansas, 2000).

(11) “Will Marshall,” Progressive Policy Institute Bio, September 14, 2003
http://www.ppionline.org /

(12) “About the DLC,” Democratic Leadership Council, January 1, 1995
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

(13) Ronald Brownstein, “Dean Denounces Democratic Leadership Council, Stuns Centrists,” Los Angeles Times, December 25, 2003.
http://www.charleston.net/stories/122503/wor_25dean.shtml

(14) Joan Walsh, “The Democratic Weaselship Council,” Salon.com, July 29, 2003.
http://www.livejournal.com/community/howard_dean/109387.html

(15) “The New Democrat Credo,” DLC, January 1, 2001.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=194&contentid=3775

(16) “New Democratic Coalition,” DLC, December 1, 2001.
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?contentid=250061&kaid=103&subid=111

(17) “Progressive Policy Institute,” Capital Research Center, 2002
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=DLC101

(18) “Third Way Foundation,” Capital Research Center, 2002.
http://www.capitalresearch.org/search/orgdisplay.asp?Org=DLC102

[mrdmk]

93. Excellent post, It will take me a year to read all of this n/t

:scared:

[Classical_Liberal]

77. Will Marshall a PNAC signatory is Kerry's speech writer

.

[salib]

12. What a pathetic excuse!!!

nuf said

[mike_c]

26. yes, they just want to kill innocent Iraqis....

eom

[nose pin]

39. Haliburton current contract

Started under Bush I, and continued through the Clinton admin.

[BeFree]

13. No, not nearly as invested as bush is, never was.

Clinton could have easily invaded. He did not. He could have gone into Iraq with "shock and awe". He didn't. Sure, his actions led to too many bombs hitting innocents, but not nearly as many as the first few hours of the latest bush campaign.

Kerry did not support the invasion. He has repeatedly railed against the way the whole situation has unfolded. He did vote to support some action against Saddam, but not the one that bush delivered.

Please try to get this straight: There is a world of difference between the Democrats and Republicans.

[mike_c]

34. There was only ONE Iraq War Resolution on the table...

...and Kerry voted for it. A bit late to say that he didn't really support it, or that he really voted for something else, etc. Please try to face reality-- an estimated 1 million Iraqis died under Clinton's iron grip on their economy, 500,000 of them children and 400,000 of those under 5 years old. That is far more than died during the "first few hours of the latest bush campaign." Inconvenient, but true.

Please try to get this straight? A world of difference between democrats and repiglicans? Not on Iraq there isn't. You're deluding yourself if you think there is. The democratic leadership has been just as complicit as the repigs.

[BeFree]

72. There were were several resolutions

One got passed. Half the Democrats - at great political peril - voted against that resolution. 100% of the pukes voted for it; a world of difference.

Now, bush can't use Kerry's vote against Kerry, but Kerry can attack bush's management of the resolution in public because he supported taking action against Saddam - just not the way bush has gone about it.

It really is a brilliant campaign move. You have to admit that. Whether it was - in the long run - an actual peace move, not until after Kerry is inaugurated will we see Kerry's true intent.

As to Kerry's actual intent: Do you really think Kerry would "shock and awe" the Iraqi populace the way bush has? Of course not.

The sad reality of the whole situation is that almost 70% of the American public supported the resolution. Therein lies the real enemy of the peace.

Political reality forces politicians to generally follow the people's wishes. Successful presidential politicians don't go against a 70% majority.

[mrdmk]

17. This is the classic DLC vs. DNC n/t

:nuke:


This is not the first time Mr. Bill Clinton has endorsed the Iraqi war. Clinton said before the invasion that it needed to be done.

[disinfo_guy]

81. even the DNC supported the war, didn't they?

I think you're right - DNC vs. DLC - but even the old timers at the establishment DNC went for this war didn't they?

[mrdmk]

88. Yes! Hook, line and sinker n/t

It was a sin to disagree with the powers that be (the president?). Our government was a total joke at the time and they know it. How does one rebound from stupidity, with more stupidity of course.

Speaking of course, gotta stay the course!

[kcwayne]

10. I have lost all respect for Clinton

We wouldn't be where we are today, with Democrats disenfranchised from power and incapable of challenging Repukes, if Clinton hadn't let his pecker become a focal point for the Repuke attack machine. His personal needs for sexual stimulation set Democrats back, and set the stage for the Kafka reality we have today.

But now to start supporting Bush and only argue about timing technicalities of when the war gets started? Its apalling. Its a stab in the back of the movement to get rid of Bush, and Clinton of all people should know better.

[BeFree]

21. Try this theory

As a President, Clinton cannot be seen as undermining another's actions in too deeply a fashion. Yeah, when you are campaigning against one, it's pretty much whatever the market will bear. But once on the outside, a former POTUS must be quite careful with his words so that it doesn't seem to the rest of the world as if America has been completely disunited. Ya know, keep up the image of a United States, and all that. Support the troops, he's the president, Love it or leave it.

Yeah, too bad Clinton can't tell the truth. It'd be nice if the leaders would, eh?

[Hornito]

37. Well put "kcwayne"!

n/t

[salib]

14. Being a Democrat (party) does not mean blindness

Clinton was not very liberal. We know that. Still, he is not helping. More to the point, he is simply trying to resurrect his cache. Just like all those "greedy" repugs who simply want to get as much as they can. Gotta move on from that, if we can.

[newsguyatl]

15. there's one thing i agree with the right wing on

and that's that clinton DOES NOT want to see kerry get elected.


and with statements like this, he might get his wish.


thank god for al gore, that's all i gotta say.

[DaveSZ]

16. I suspect the difference between Bush and Clinton

is similar to the difference between Bush and Holy Joe.

That is, there isn't much of a difference.

[formernaderite]

20. I suspect the same, but he's completely irrational if he thinks Hillary is

electable.

[Tinoire]

18. I am going to be so gentle

I thought everyone was already aware of this.

Last year Clinton told the Left to "get over the war". Clinton supported this from the beginning. The 8 years worth of daily bombings and sanctions were a continuation of Bush Sr's war. Do you remember the OSU tour where Clinton sent Albright, Sandy Berger and William Cohen to drum up support to start the war?

Clinton is the President who has disappointed me the most because I wasn't paying close enough attention on his watch. I'll always have a soft spot for him but I am so ashamed of the NeoConservative/NeoLiberal projects that were pushed through on his watch. The idea that Clinton was a Liberal is one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the Democratic Party. Noam Chomsky will tell you that Nixon (urgh) was more Liberal than Clinton. Scary!

Our problem right now isn't really Liberals vs Conservatives; it's Democrats vs NeoLiberals and Conservatives vs NeoConservatives.

The cancer of the New World Order where America dominates the world is what's killing us now. No one wants to be dominated and the Neos on both sides of the aisle are having problems accepting that.




NAFTA, GATT, WTO- those were all in the finest traditions of Cecile Rhodes, the man who founded the Rhodes scholarships.

Clinton team jeered during town hall

COLUMBUS, Ohio - Facing tough questions from America's heartland, the Clinton administration's foreign policy team tried to make the case Wednesday for U.S. military action against Iraq. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright called Iraq's disputed weapons arsenal the "greatest security threat we face."

<snip>

Joining Albright on a red carpeted-stage in the center of a basketball arena were Defense Secretary William Cohen and National Security Adviser Samuel Berger. They were interrupted several times by chants from a noisy audience that included students as well as uniformed members of the military and veterans.

<snip>
When one questioner said as many as 100,000 Iraqi civilians could be killed in an attack, Albright replied, "I'm willing to make a bet that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does."

<snip>

Berger sought to frame the dispute in broad, strategic terms. He said the world could not afford to allow Iraq to flout the will of the international community.


<snip>

http://www.usatoday.com/news/index/iraq/iraq172.htm



====

'Things worth fighting for'
Foreign policy team visits OSU
By Mike Spahn
Daily Staff Reporter

COLUMBUS - President Clinton's foreign policy team met yesterday at Ohio State University with a rowdy crowd in a town hall meeting to discuss the current situation in Iraq.

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, Secretary of Defense William Cohen and National Security Adviser Sandy Berger met for 90 minutes with a crowd that often yelled and chanted in protest of possible U.S. military action against Iraq.

<snip>

Berger said the aim of a possible airstrike would be twofold: to diminish Saddam Hussein's weapons and reduce the threat to Iraq's neighbors.

"We will send a clear message to would-be tyrants and terrorists that we will do what is necessary to protect our freedom," Berger said.

<snip>
"I am willing to make a bet with anyone here that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does," Albright said.

OSU senior Omar Hamid said the United States is only concerned with Iraq because of economic interests.


<snip>

http://www.pub.umich.edu/daily/1998/feb/02-19-98/news/news1.html

[Name removed]

19. Deleted message

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

[Kanary]

45. There must be scars on your tongue from continually biting it, Tinoire

Yes, you were very gentle.

Wearing blinders is not the sole province of the reich wing.

While I sympathize with people in shock because they're learning for the first time what the reality of the state of the DEM party is, I also know that the situation is grave, and we *must* come to grips SOON with what has happened to this party, and that includes the actuality of Clinton.

Kanary

[Tinoire]

55. It's sad because 7 years ago I would have been biting people's heads

off for saying anything negative about Clinton- as a matter of fact I did, constantly. I still admire him more than any other living President but I realize my old hero was not the hero I thought. This is what you get for being asleep when your guy is at the wheel and it's the same mistake many Republicans make. This is how they do it... they get us energized every 4 years and then half the population goes to sleep because their new hero is in charge :(

Slowly, greatfully, people are waking up and the internet is the greatest tool for this. Take the above story... If it hadn't been for the internet very few would have even known about it or discussed it. We'd be so clueless.

3 years at DU provided me with a political education I couldn't have paid to get anywhere.

I hope more people take this opportunity to wake up so that we can get out of this mess as gracefully as possible.

Peace

[Kanary]

80. Well, then, I guess you would have found out how tasty *my* head

was. :)

Y'know, what I find sad in all this, and in what you say, is that those of us who were so negatively affected by Clinton's policies *KNEW* what he was about, yet we still would have been sacrificed on that altar of "loyalty".

What I find truly sad in all this is that the demand of loyalty is so strong that we have lost most of our ability to empathize with each other. When people spoke up about NAFTA, etc., those who weren't affected gave all kinds of rationale and, in so many words, told those affected to STFU (as is so common here on DU), and turned their collective backs on those hurting from those policies.

When Clinton crapped on women on welfare, that was almost too easy to ignore...... women being mostly invisible anyway, and poor women much more so. Who has called for follow up studies to find what has happened to those women? Who has given it much more thought? If many are dead, does it matter?

The fact that we find it so easy to not feel and consider the pain of others is what deeply troubles me. It's more than seeing the truth about any politician, whether it be *bushwa, Clinton or Kerry. It's about US, and the layers of stone around our hearts that keeps us from empathizing with each other. Or, for that matter, even *seeing* them.

And for so many years, those who suffered the effects of his policies have been vilified for having the audacity to actually *see* it.

Yes, education helps. Even more so, is the ability to open our hearts to each other, and *hear*.

Kanary

[KoKo]

121. Thanks once again, Tinoire. This post should be "pinned" somewhere

on DU so it can always be referred to. So many good posts here on DU which should be there for reference. Maybe Skinner should start a "Resource Forum." This idea for a forum to keep important research articles here for reference has been requested before in one form or another by DU'ers, but doesn't seem to go anywhere.

:hi:

[Hubert Flottz]

66. I agree that the "New World Order" is our REAL enemy!

Check out the goals and the membership of the Counsel On Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and you'll see why so many on both sides of the isle see eye to eye! Freedom and Liberty are on the endangered species list too! Globalization is doing far more harm to America than good!

[jpgray]

71. Too few know about Cohen and Albright at OSU

Clinton's presidency was far too hawkish on foreign policy for my tastes--I'm surprised at the surprise here more than anything else.

[G_j]

74. thank you

for filling in a common blind spot. Amnesia will not protect us from the NWO.

[disinfo_guy]

75. thanks Tinoire!

Yes, I think it was Ohio State. I vivdly remember Albright being heckled there, they showed the clip on TV a few times.

"I am willing to make a bet with anyone here that we care more about the Iraqi people than Saddam Hussein does," Albright said.

Can you believe this? Shameless aren't they?

[LTR]

22. Unwritten rule: Presidents don't badmouth each other

It would be uncivil. That's why they are actually in the hot seat and we just bitch on message boards.

[DaveSZ]

23. Nixon was more liberal than Clinton

It's true.

He improved Johnson's war on poverty program, and Clinton ripped more poor people off the welfare roles.

I'd vote for Nixon over Clinton probably, and although he did give us Rehnquist, he also gave us Blackmun.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

24. Echo

It would be untraditional of Clinton to criticize Bush. A good ex-president either supports, or shuts up, traditionally.

[nose pin]

32. Carter?

He criticizes.

[TheWizardOfMudd]

41. Good point

I guess the rule relaxes when the president has been out of office for twenty years.

[Catherine Vincent]

25. President Clinton is only being a statesman.

Apparently some of you haven't figured that out.

[maggrwaggr]

33. fuck that

If Clinton has any sense of decency, he should call a spade a spade.

Clinton was the best Republican president this country has ever had. I've said it before and I'm saying it again here.

[Catherine Vincent]

49. Put yourself in Clinton's shoes...

He is an ex president that had a great presidency. He knows he's damned if he do (criticizes Bush) and damned if he doesn't. So he is very careful at how he criticizes Bush. We all know he wouldn't have started a war with Iraq and fucked up like Bush has, but it's done and there is nothing he can say that will end it. Clinton saw all the anti-war protestors all over the world and he knows if that doesn't persuade the Bush cabal, his criticism sure won't. Clinton knows there are other high level Democrats that will speak out against Bush for him.

[maggrwaggr]

59. what the heck are you talking about?

Clinton is retired, he's an ex-president, and he can say whatever the hell he wants without fear of repercussion.

If anybody is in a position to tell the truth, and tell it loudly, it's this guy.

The Democrats are in great need of some leadership, they turn to Clinton and what do they hear? This shit?

I say it again. Fuck that.

[T Town Jake]

36. Exactly right! I agree 100%, and...

...thank you for saying it; I was about to but knew I'd have to don my asbestos suit to avoid the inevitable flames about my low post count and what it means to be a "real" liberal. Bill Clinton was a GREAT president, and he's turned out to be a classy ex-president, too, IMHO.

[Tinoire]

43. Many of us will not dispute that Clinton was a great President

In the American scheme of things, for Americans, and if only Americans count, yes indeed he was a great President.

On the world stage, he had presence, intelligence, and knew how much to give and take with other imperialists so as to maintain a good facade of decency with their help.

Bush Sr, Clinton and Bush Jr are working on the same agenda. Jr's only problem is that he's an inept buffoon which is why the powers that be, the ones who put him there, finally want him gone- he's exposing the whole game. In the internet age that is a dangerous thing.

[lumpy]

40. If this is statesmanship

what is he trying to sell. US Reputation ?

[Kanary]

50. I hope you "figure it out" before we've completely lost

what precious little is left of our nation.

Kanary

[nose pin]

29. I posted a thread a couple of days ago

about the upcoming 60 Minutes interview, which will have statements like this in it. I got smacked with a rolled up newspaper though.

You guys need to be a little nicer to us newbies.

edit: speeling

[mrdmk]

95. Welcome to D.U.

:spank:

Nothing personal, just political. Mr. Bill Clinton had some good points and some bad points. Like every other politician he could not keep his dick out of it. He did survive a Republican onslaught which is something to say, but at the same time he checked in with the Republicans before his Democratic constituents. This pissed off a lot of liberals to no end. We are finding these people here speaking their minds at this moment. Once again, welcome to D.U.

[lumpy]

30. I immediately lost respect for Clinton

when he pushed for NAFTA. My respect for him has steadily gone south in spite of his rhetorical abilities. If this is his way of thinking, then the it's true that power politics corrupts and quite possibly Viagra affects the brain. Clinton is a terrific speaker and has the power to mesmerize his audience. Apparently Clinton failed to listen to the voices of millions of people across the world who marched against Bushcos illegal invasion and destruction of Iraq. Clinton has now lost all credibility with most of those people. I have heard not one word from Clinton regarding the convolution of the truth of Bushcos reasons for in invading Iraq. There are so very few politicians that are famous for putting principle above politics and Clinton is not one of them, sadly.

[DaveSZ]

35. Clinton has a unique gift of oratory

He chose to use that gift to fight on behalf of corporations, while he could have used it to fight against the Reagan legacy.


Al Gore used to be the same way until he woke up.

:)

That's why I like Al Gore.

[scared]

60. I agree.........

I just don't trust him anymore. You just know he was in contact with Blair constantly, given their closeness. He was probably advising Blair on what to do.

And for anyone to think that he is not aware of this administrations aims, well, I just don't believe it. He knows the kind of people in this administration, and their PNAC plans. So why would he trust their motives? Don't get it.

When I hear him speak recently, promoting his book, he basically said that Bush and all the neocons have the best interest of the American people at heart, they just see things differently. Oh really? Is that how he felt when they were trying to run him out of office?

I am becoming more and more convinced that this country, whether run by a democrat or republican is on a steady decline. I think they are aligned in ways that we just don't know about. If that sounds like a conspiracy, then so be it. It just does not smell right to me.

[moondust]

47. He probably advised Tony Blair to go along.

And Tony would never tell him no.

How does one go about impeaching an ex-President?

[nose pin]

53. Already been done

lol

[Disturbed]

58. The Clintons

Bill and Hillary are both right wing leaning Dems. Anymore right wing and they would be moderate Repubs. I believe both are bright, talented,charismatic and excellent speakers but I would never vote for either one because I feel that they are both outright opportunists. Bill, if he not gone into politics, would have been a top actor in film or tv.

The Dems lost any credibilty when they decided to go to the right as far as they could without actually being Repubs. The liberal and left of the party is a tiny minority now. The only reason that the Dems could win the next election would be due to a huge screw-up by BushCo, Iraq going real bad or the Plame Outing or Torture Scandal implicating the Pres. directly.

[pezcore64]

57. well personally

i think its freakin' funny.

ive been worried about the clintons messing up the election for ages.
i like ole bill for alot of reasons, but he really wasnt all that great either in the big grand scheme of things.
i really think the clintons got what they wanted with kerry being nominated, and ill stand by that regardless of the income of the election.
i think a deaf and blind monkey could beat Shrub. Oh wait, thatd be him against himself ;)

[TexasBushwhacker]

63. But we still haven't found any WMD's ......

"I have repeatedly defended President Bush against the left on Iraq, even though I think he should have waited until the U.N. inspections were over,"

This is kind of like saying "I supported the execution, but I thought they should have waited until he was found guilty."

Waited until the UN inspections were over? How about wait until they FOUND SOMETHING, because they still haven't, have they?

Well, at least this all came out before I bought his book.

[Swamp Rat]

64. Disturbing indeed

Dammit! He knows better! This is disturbing indeed.

Since he agrees with the NeoCons, would he be willing to send his daughter in place of my cousin who's being sent back on a second tour of duty?

:lots of 4 letter words!:

[fujiyama]

65. Truly dissapointing

He made a very good president, but these statements "in support of the war" are very dissapointing.

Whether the UN justified it or not, this war still would have been immoral, unjustified, and unecessary. It is difficult to deny that.

It just goes to show that this irrational obsession over Saddam is not new. Clinton also bombed Iraq. He also upheld the sanctions. He also constantly claimed they were a huge threat. Clinton can now say that he warned Bush that Al Qaeda was the more imminent threat (and I'm not doubting he did), but it's obvious he doesn't understand the real repercussions of this war, especially that of using so much of our military and intelligence resources on Iraq, rather than terrorism.

I understand that it's not very common for ex presidents to criticize the sitting president, but Clinton HAS on certain occasions. Also, he need not yell like Gore (it's not in Clinton's style), but an honest assessment of this war should lead anyone with half a brain to conclude that it was a bad idea.

I really admire Clinton, but in many ways, he has been a dissapointment. I remember that night Gore gave the concession speech. My dad said he would have made a better president than Clinton. He most likely would have.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

67. Actually Clintons remarks are really good....

If someone is a Democrat, but still supported the war, Clinton offers some good critiques on how Bush went about going to war, and he is quite good on Abu Ghirab.

Alot of what Clinton is saying is just realpolitik, and is based on his 8 years of dealing with Saddam, so I think its worth paying attention to.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

68. Clinton was never a friend to the left.

His "triangulation" practices were merely a way to move the party to the right. To make it more republican. I voted for the twit twice and still regret it.

Of course, the DLC apologists will say he "wasn't as bad as the republicans".

As a previous poster said, "He was the best Republican president this country has ever had."

[Junkdrawer]

69. He's pretty much locked into that position...

Many Dem leaders had the same position before the war, but now have the luxury of claiming "Bush lied to me". The Big Dog can't say that - he was privy to the most secret intelligence for 8 years.

[Deja Q]

70. He's a centrist. Why do people think he's Liberal/progressive? & Gore...

He had his good points but he allowed the repukes to slam him down (national healthcare, et al).

By late 1994 he was all pro-puke AFAIC.

Interesting, isn't it? Clinton's licking Bush and Gore's kicking it... they did have a falling out after Selection 2000.

I wish Gore was President...

[emulatorloo]

73. Inspections Done, No WMDs Found = No Invasion. . .

If the inspections had continued, there would have been no invasion

Seems pretty simple to me.

[TexasBushwhacker]

78. should have been no invasion

but I'm pretty sure there WOULD have, because we know that it's all about FUCKING OIL and big corporate contracts and there's no better way than a war to come up with spending lots of money paying your corporate buddies on no-bid contracts.

I wonder if anyone will ask Gore if he agrees with Clinton on this issue. I wonder what he would say.

[pezcore64]

96. prolly cause

people in our party are just as brainwashed sometimes as the people on the right. ;)

[Selwynn]

79. Why the big shock? Clinton is a DLC republican lite

I'm not sure why everyone around here fricken loves him so much.

[RedSock]

83. never understood the clinton love here

i was excited by him (i.e., naive) in 1992 but after he went back on about 25 promises in his first 8 weeks in office, i soured on him big time.

refused to vote for him in 96.

and after her unquestioning support for * (and against the flood of calls her office received, as noted here at the time) hillary will NEVER get my vote for ANYTHING.

[mrdmk]

89. I really disagree with this

<snip from posted article>
"The more we learn about it, the more it seems that some people fairly high up, at least, thought that this was the way it ought to be done," he said.

Implying that the United States should lead by example, Clinton said of the abuses, "No. 1, we can't pull stunts like that, and No. 2, when we do, whoever is responsible has to pay."
<end of snip>

This act of using torture was done because Mr. Bush Jr. wanted to look good to the macho, kick their ass take no prisoners population of the United States. Mr. Bush "I am no sissy", Jr. really stuck his dick in this one. Jr.'s track record of being a loser really shows on this one. Why do you think the media is not going for this one (except for the usual suspects). Mr. Bush Jr. needs to be impeached and or taken to trail as a public citizen after his term is over. This is the only way of repairing our relations and morality with the rest of the world by putting the very responsible in jail for murder.

[genius]

91. I remember him encouraging people to back Bush

[progressivebydesign]

92. Big Dog hasn't lost it..

I watched him months ago on.. was it Daily SHow?.. anyway, he was talking about the Iraq invasion. This was before the shit really hit the fan. He said that he agreed, 'Saddam is a bad guy and needed to be taken out of power', but he also said, as he says now, that 'Bush should have worked with the UN, and waited for the inspections to finish'. At first, I was pissed that he seemed to support Bush, but I'm bright enough to realize that HE more than anyone, should know the dangers of Saddam, and how best to remove him. Nowhere has Clinton said that he supports everything Bush has done and fucked up.. But he's acknowledging that the Iraqis WOULD be better off without Saddam, and he's being diplomatic in saying that Bush should have waited for the Inspectors. He's not selling anyone out. IMHO.

[jokerman93]

109. First Putin, Now Clinton?

Sounds like there was a meeting we weren't invited to.

To me this is all starting to sound like damage control of the highest degree.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

110. Come ON guys, you REALLY mean to tell me some of you don't get this?

Let's see. Kerry voted for the war. Is now against it. He feels lied to (many people do, Senator).

Clinton says what he says (and several people here had it right when they pointed out the very.....diplomatic way Clinton said what he said, which does not, in the end, agree with bush very much) and suddenly Kerry looks more liberal next to Clinton, thus scoring points with the more left-leaning people out there.

Clinton's carrying water for Kerry, but in a very subtle way that is lost on some. I was just debating with a freepard who was all excited over that story until I burst her bubble.

[Tinoire]

111. How big is that spinning wheel?!

The Left-leaning people were paying extremely close attention during all of this. To even suggest this is to insult the Left as having been asleep during the last 4 years. I guarantee you the Left was not asleep. The Left was too busy phoning, faxing, writing, protesting and keeping our eyes glued like HAWKS to these guys. One of the main people we contacted was Kerry.

Please. By all means, convince people to vote for Kerry so we can get that SOB out of office, but don't insult our intelligence.
We know full well who signed the Iraq Liberation Act and it wasn't Bush.

Before the Primaries were even held, Clinton was telling the Left to "get over it".

Great President. Extremely intelligent and charismatic. Brilliant politician. But not a fool. Clinton knows full well the Left was paying attention because he was harrassed by the Left over the stuff he did.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

113. Oh I agree with what you wrote

I just don't agree with the people here claiming that Clinton is practically in bed with bush now. Very faulty logic, indeed.

[hiphopnation]

114. I find your round-about

logic explaining his support for Bush and the war dizzying at best. It seems a little far fethced. But hey, I'm open to anything.

I don't think that statemens like this one mean he's in league with BushCo and PNAC; if I thought that I wouldn't be so suprised to read statements like the one he made. :shrug:

[Tinoire]

117. Whew!

Not for agreeing with me but for the rest. Clinton's certainly NOT in bed with Bush. Yikes, that's foul. No matter how disappointed I am in some things that were pushed through under Clinton, he gets my vote as a great President. He was entrusted to take care of this country and that he did. Also, when it came to conflicts, he had a much higher regard for human life than that psychopath. He's a brilliant man. I don't agree with him on a lot of issues but my problem's not so much with him as with how our country is set up, what it's turned into under the stranglehold of corporations. He played with the deck he was dealt and played his hands very well when it came to our interests.

[Swamp Rat]

115. Yes, we have been watching

... like hawks, as you say. I told this very same thing to ACLU President Nadine Strossen when she came to Tulane University a couple years ago. She was very surprised to hear that I read the Patriot Act, since most of Congress didn't! Before she left, I warned that we are paying attention to EVERY thing they are doing.

I have to bones about calling out ANY representative about what they do or say in our name. Clinton better stop trying to finesse and massage the tenor of his politics - this is no time to play games. The NeoCons are playing for keeps and they could care less about his political pandering and diplomacy.

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

116. If you listened to his speech at the Book Expo a few weeks back

I think it makes more sense. (In that context, anyway.)

He seems to truly believe the neocons and their extremist movement are going to hang themselves and go down in flames. He came right out and said don't be worried about it, because they will not survive. Anytime a society is on the cusp of major change, the extremists get freaked out and this is no different (again, I am paraphrasing him here). He said that's why he isn't worried about bush and co. Because they aren't going to be around for the long haul.

In the interest of full disclosure, I am a big ol' hugely left dove, not nearly as hawkish as Clinton and never have been. I'm not THRILLED with what he said, especially since I have bush supporter friends just spootin' all over themselves with glee. I'm busy trying to get them to read between the lines and see that what he said doesn't mean he would have done the same thing. And I do think this is some political maneuvering that is supposed to benefit Kerry. How is not yet clear to me.

[Tinoire]

118. I agree. This is no time for games because this one is for keeps

Right now I'm looking for straight truth. Owning up to mistakes will carry a lot more weight. Or just outright admitting "Here is why we did this, our economy depends on controlling that oil and we couldn't let the Euro move in". Just own up to it. Get up there in straight English and show you care for the people over corporations. Gosh... we're in such a pickle that I don't see how we're going to get out of it. The corporations and banks were allowed to go too far.

Something as simple as buying a house is a ruinous enterprise in this country. Greed is dominating EVERYTHING. Just thought of all the homeless with no healthcare, no food. What an absolute shame when we have such an obscene defense budget...

[Moonbeam_Starlight]

119. I totally agree

especially with your last paragraph.

I was just telling my daughter what a shame I think it is that in the richest country on the planet there should even BE any homeless people. She agreed.