Republicans for Dean!

Check this out: http://republicansfordean.blogspot.com There are some great posts from Republicans who are now supporting Howard Dean's campaign. Here's one:

As a Republican who voted for Bush, and now supports Dean, I applaud you for setting up this site. My primary reason for breaking with the current administration relates to the administration's fiscal policy. It is unconscionable that this administration would push forward with a tax cut scheme that is essentially a give away to the top 1% of tax payers, while placing us on the superhighway toward impending fiscal doom. Imagine, a Republican administration supporting a half-trillion budget deficit! Dean can gain more core Republican support if he hammers on this issue. He is the only candidate in either party who has balanced a budget, and who has practiced fiscal restraint.

Every Republican who wants to see Bush re-elected should be down on their knees at night praying that the Democrats nominate Howard Dean. Better still, they should write him big checks for his campaign.

A super-liberal, nay-saying Governor from a tiny New England state who is viciously opposed to an extremely popular war. Why not just re-nominate Michael Dukakis?

Even worse than Dukakis, who at least came across as a nice pleasant man, Dean appears mean, hateful, and angry - just like those posting this section who share his views.

If you want Bush to be re-elected, you can't ask for a better opponent than Howard Dean. I think even Walter Mondale would do better.

Let's not forget that the Presidential election is not until November NEXT YEAR. That's almost 18 months away.

A lot can happen in 18 months. A President can face impeachment proceedings over his squalid sexual encounters with a White House intern and emerge months later as a great statesman. A President can be elected with what was then the biggest majority in history, and within months become the most reviled President of his era because of the dirty tricks involved in his re-election campaign. A war that was immensely popular in election year can turn out to be an election liability a couple of years later.

And, of course, a President can fight a very successful war in the Gulf, have the highest approval ratings in modern times, and lose to an unknown outsider from a small state just 18 months later. A President can be elected on a dubious mandate, and find that two planes crashing into buildings 10 months later unites the country behind him.

The election of 2004 is unlikely to be fought on the issues of the Gulf War. The more American lives lost in Iraq to urban guerillas, the less popular the war is going to become. Support for continued US involvement in Iraq is already dropping in the polls. In 18 months time the war will be old history, replaced by new crises and new issues.

One of those issues is going to be Bush's economic credentials. It is ironic that it has been the Democrats in modern times who have succeeded in balancing the budget, and the Republicans who have succeeded in achieving record budget deficits. Bush is continuing in a long line of financial lunatics on the Republic side of politics, dating from the voodoo economics of Ronald Reagan right through to the present day.

(And if you didn't recognise the Presidents, they were:

Clinton, facing impeachment over Monica Lewinsky

Nixon, winning the 1972 election and then facing Watergate

Johnson, winning the 1964 election and declining to renominate 3 years later because of the unpopularity of the Vietnam War

Bush snr, vastly popular because of the Gulf War of 1991, losing the election to the unknown Clinton in 1992

Bush jnr, well you should have got that one!)

(This is a little redundant because pyell posted the same thought while I was typing, but I typed the damn thing and I’m going to post it.)

>A super-liberal, nay-saying Governor from a tiny New England

>state who is viciously opposed to an extremely popular war.

>Why not just re-nominate Michael Dukakis?

We shall see…we shall see. I think Dean has a certain appeal, but I do agree that him being a Yankee is not a big help. I’m still watching and hoping on that one, but we may need to go to a Southerner.

A possible scenario, that I actually hope does not materialize because it is so negative, is that this war of attrition continues for another year. Taking one casualty after another.

As much as our heart is in the right place, Americans do not have the stomach for body bags over a protracted period of time. The Iraqis will be perceived as savages who do not want freedom and are not worthy of dying for. The popularity of this war will plummet. Bush will not be able to stem the local resistance. He also won’t be able to withdraw without admitting defeat. It’s a no-win for him and he gets the blame.

Couple that with an economy still in the toilet and that spells ‘NEW ADMINISTRATION’!

Not to mention a little question that sometimes speaks volumes:

Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

Not to mention a little question that sometimes speaks volumes:

Are you better off today than you were four years ago?

Even better, Doug, Dean by attacking the tax cuts and deficits, is becoming committed to running on a platform including a tax raise. How sweet it is.

Even better, Doug, Dean by attacking the tax cuts and deficits, is becoming committed to running on a platform including a tax raise. How sweet it is.

>Let's not forget that the Presidential election is not until

>November NEXT YEAR. That's almost 18 months away.

If you think that a super-liberal anti-war Democratic politician from a small Northeastern state has any chance of being elected President, then you understand nothing about American electoral politics.

What everyone forgets is that in the last 40 years in this country -- 40 years -- the only Democrats ever to be elected President have been moderate Southerners. The Democrats who devitated from this model - McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis - didn't just lose. They got slaughtered in humilitating landslides. The only Democrat who lost and came close during this 40-year period (Gore) was also a moderate Southener.

Except in isolated, unrepresentative enclaves (NYC, LA, San Fransisco, etc.) and among group-think members of small special interest groups who sacrifice their individuality for their group identity(liberal blacks, liberal gays, etc.), liberals like Dean provoke nothing but repulsion and fear at the very idea that they could get any real power.

While you are correct that unexpected events can occur in a Presidential election cycle, the core character of the American public isn't changing. And that core character pukes up any uber-liberal, tax-raising, anti-war, angry Northeastern politician.

What people also forget is that the only Democrat to be elected in the last 25 years was Bill Clinton - an unsually smart, shrewd politician who won precisely because he stomped out the type of partisian, shrill, hate-driven rhetoric that ones sees consuming the Democratic Party again.

Indeed, Clinton went on television the other night to warn Democrats about attacking Bush on Iraq, and he chose an very significant occasion to do so: it was Bob Dole's 80th Birthday Party, and Clinton sat there praising Dole - whom he kept referring to as a "cconservative Republican" - as effusively as he could, and agreed with him on virtually everything, including Iraq. He did this in order to warn Democrats that they are being perceived as anti-American, overly-partisian, and petty, and that is a sure recipe for defeat.

But, hey - if you want Howard Dean to be your standard-bearer, please, go ahead - I don't want to do anything to discourage you. In fact, let me know what I can do to help!

>A lot can happen in 18 months. A President can face

>impeachment proceedings over his squalid sexual encounters

>with a White House intern and emerge months later as a great

>statesman.

I just couldn't let this lie go unanswered. Clinton was not ipeached for any "sexual encounter." He was impeached for lying under oath when giving testimony in a judicial proceeding. I don't know the law in Australia on that point, but in the United States, doing that constitutes what we call "perjury," a rather serious crime.

So please stop lying and saying that he was impeached for the sex he had. Thanks.

>Let's not forget that the Presidential election is not until

>November NEXT YEAR. That's almost 18 months away.

If you think that a super-liberal anti-war Democratic politician from a small Northeastern state has any chance of being elected President, then you understand nothing about American electoral politics.

What everyone forgets is that in the last 40 years in this country -- 40 years -- the only Democrats ever to be elected President have been moderate Southerners. The Democrats who devitated from this model - McGovern, Mondale, Dukakis - didn't just lose. They got slaughtered in humilitating landslides. The only Democrat who lost and came close during this 40-year period (Gore) was also a moderate Southener.

Except in isolated, unrepresentative enclaves (NYC, LA, San Fransisco, etc.) and among group-think members of small special interest groups who sacrifice their individuality for their group identity(liberal blacks, liberal gays, etc.), liberals like Dean provoke nothing but repulsion and fear at the very idea that they could get any real power.

While you are correct that unexpected events can occur in a Presidential election cycle, the core character of the American public isn't changing. And that core character pukes up any uber-liberal, tax-raising, anti-war, angry Northeastern politician.

What people also forget is that the only Democrat to be elected in the last 25 years was Bill Clinton - an unsually smart, shrewd politician who won precisely because he stomped out the type of partisian, shrill, hate-driven rhetoric that ones sees consuming the Democratic Party again.

Indeed, Clinton went on television the other night to warn Democrats about attacking Bush on Iraq, and he chose an very significant occasion to do so: it was Bob Dole's 80th Birthday Party, and Clinton sat there praising Dole - whom he kept referring to as a "cconservative Republican" - as effusively as he could, and agreed with him on virtually everything, including Iraq. He did this in order to warn Democrats that they are being perceived as anti-American, overly-partisian, and petty, and that is a sure recipe for defeat.

But, hey - if you want Howard Dean to be your standard-bearer, please, go ahead - I don't want to do anything to discourage you. In fact, let me know what I can do to help!

>A lot can happen in 18 months. A President can face

>impeachment proceedings over his squalid sexual encounters

>with a White House intern and emerge months later as a great

>statesman.

I just couldn't let this lie go unanswered. Clinton was not ipeached for any "sexual encounter." He was impeached for lying under oath when giving testimony in a judicial proceeding. I don't know the law in Australia on that point, but in the United States, doing that constitutes what we call "perjury," a rather serious crime.

So please stop lying and saying that he was impeached for the sex he had. Thanks.

>We shall see…we shall see. I think Dean has a certain appeal, . . .

You're definitely right - Dean does "have a certain appeal." His certain appeal is that he appeals to gay California liberals and aging anti-war protestors from the 60s. That's his certain appeal. If you think that's a winning formuala for a Presidential campaign in the United States, you may want to go back and read about George McGovern's campaign - or Walter Mondale's - or Michael Dukakis'.

>but I do agree that him being a Yankee is not a big help. I’m

>still watching and hoping on that one, but we may need to go

>to a Southerner.

I really urge you to read the transcript of the Larry King show where Clinton appeared as a guest honoring Bob Dole. If I were a Democrat or a liberal and I wanted to know what to do to win a national election, the only person I would listen to is Clinton.

He is SCREAMING at Democrats that if they continue to do what they are doing on Iraq, they will be perceived as completely anti-American, rooting against the U.S., and as being totally partisian, petty and filled with rage. That is all one hears now from the Democratic Party.

Clinton's political genius was to re-invent the Democratic Party as one filled with sensible, non-hateful, American-loving, reasonable, non-partisian policy makers who share the same values as America's heartland. Now that he's gone, the Democratic Party has reverted to its old ways and once again resembles a hate fest of Blame America First militant extremists in the BewareOfNick mold ("He lied about Iraq! Impeach him now!!").

As I said earlier, the best thing that ever happened to Clinton was that the extreme personal hatred which the right-wing exhibited for him was so repulsive to the Political Center that it drove them into Bush's arms. The same thing is happening now, but in reverse. The deeply hateful personal animus being directed towards Bush is so vile, ugly and substance-less that his political enemies have become his greatest asset.

As for your belief/hope that lots of body bags can defeat Bush, I think history proves you wrong. Americans are willing to fight bloody wars if they are convinced that doing so is necessary for their security.

Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about, and that it would be good to capture the specific perpetrators.

But most Americans see 9/11 as what it is - the Pearl Harbor of the war which Muslim extremists have waged, and are waging on our civilization, and they are prepared, as they have demonstrated by enthusiasitcally supporting 2 wars (so far) to engage in war and sustain causalties in order to obliterate that threat.

No matter what the economy is like, any Democrat who is percevied as being unwilling to fight this war aggressively or who fails to recognize the true magnitude of this war has absolutely no chance to win. Americans care about their pocketbooks to be sure, but they care more that they and their children aren't exploded by bombs on a bus or airplanes flying into buildings.

>We shall see…we shall see. I think Dean has a certain appeal, . . .

You're definitely right - Dean does "have a certain appeal." His certain appeal is that he appeals to gay California liberals and aging anti-war protestors from the 60s. That's his certain appeal. If you think that's a winning formuala for a Presidential campaign in the United States, you may want to go back and read about George McGovern's campaign - or Walter Mondale's - or Michael Dukakis'.

>but I do agree that him being a Yankee is not a big help. I’m

>still watching and hoping on that one, but we may need to go

>to a Southerner.

I really urge you to read the transcript of the Larry King show where Clinton appeared as a guest honoring Bob Dole. If I were a Democrat or a liberal and I wanted to know what to do to win a national election, the only person I would listen to is Clinton.

He is SCREAMING at Democrats that if they continue to do what they are doing on Iraq, they will be perceived as completely anti-American, rooting against the U.S., and as being totally partisian, petty and filled with rage. That is all one hears now from the Democratic Party.

Clinton's political genius was to re-invent the Democratic Party as one filled with sensible, non-hateful, American-loving, reasonable, non-partisian policy makers who share the same values as America's heartland. Now that he's gone, the Democratic Party has reverted to its old ways and once again resembles a hate fest of Blame America First militant extremists in the BewareOfNick mold ("He lied about Iraq! Impeach him now!!").

As I said earlier, the best thing that ever happened to Clinton was that the extreme personal hatred which the right-wing exhibited for him was so repulsive to the Political Center that it drove them into Bush's arms. The same thing is happening now, but in reverse. The deeply hateful personal animus being directed towards Bush is so vile, ugly and substance-less that his political enemies have become his greatest asset.

As for your belief/hope that lots of body bags can defeat Bush, I think history proves you wrong. Americans are willing to fight bloody wars if they are convinced that doing so is necessary for their security.

Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about, and that it would be good to capture the specific perpetrators.

But most Americans see 9/11 as what it is - the Pearl Harbor of the war which Muslim extremists have waged, and are waging on our civilization, and they are prepared, as they have demonstrated by enthusiasitcally supporting 2 wars (so far) to engage in war and sustain causalties in order to obliterate that threat.

No matter what the economy is like, any Democrat who is percevied as being unwilling to fight this war aggressively or who fails to recognize the true magnitude of this war has absolutely no chance to win. Americans care about their pocketbooks to be sure, but they care more that they and their children aren't exploded by bombs on a bus or airplanes flying into buildings.

>Even better, Doug, Dean by attacking the tax cuts and

>deficits, is becoming committed to running on a platform

>including a tax raise. How sweet it is.

Totally! I love so much how these liberal Democrats think it's a good strategy to run around saying how they can't wait to undo the tax cuts, i.e., to raise taxes.

They forgot every lesson Clinton taught them. They are back in the Walter Mondale-Mike Dukakis world, which they never really left. Clinton was just so smart that he was able to quiet them and hide them.

With Clinton gone, they are again exposed for what they are - and it isn't pretty! In fact, it's as ugly as it's ever been.

They keep whining about the 2000 election, but conveniently forget that they were vehemently rejected with a historic magnitude in the 2002 mid-term elections.

The best thing about them is that they never learn - raise taxes, Blame America, screetch out hate-driven rhetoric.

HOWARD DEAN FOR THE NOMINATION!!!!

>Even better, Doug, Dean by attacking the tax cuts and

>deficits, is becoming committed to running on a platform

>including a tax raise. How sweet it is.

Totally! I love so much how these liberal Democrats think it's a good strategy to run around saying how they can't wait to undo the tax cuts, i.e., to raise taxes.

They forgot every lesson Clinton taught them. They are back in the Walter Mondale-Mike Dukakis world, which they never really left. Clinton was just so smart that he was able to quiet them and hide them.

With Clinton gone, they are again exposed for what they are - and it isn't pretty! In fact, it's as ugly as it's ever been.

They keep whining about the 2000 election, but conveniently forget that they were vehemently rejected with a historic magnitude in the 2002 mid-term elections.

The best thing about them is that they never learn - raise taxes, Blame America, screetch out hate-driven rhetoric.

HOWARD DEAN FOR THE NOMINATION!!!!

>He is SCREAMING at Democrats that if they continue to do what

>they are doing on Iraq, they will be perceived as completely

>anti-American, rooting against the U.S., and as being totally

>partisian, petty and filled with rage. That is all one hears

>now from the Democratic Party.

Then apparently your listening skills are on a par with your comprehension skills. What to hear totally partisan, petty and filled with rage? Listen to The Savage Weiner or better yet Ann Coulter. Models of today's compassionate conservatism.

>Clinton's political genius was to re-invent the Democratic

>Party as one filled with sensible, non-hateful,

>American-loving, reasonable, non-partisian policy makers who

>share the same values as America's heartland. Now that he's

>gone, the Democratic Party has reverted to its old ways and

>once again resembles a hate fest of Blame America First

>militant extremists in the BewareOfNick mold ("He lied about

>Iraq! Impeach him now!!").

Something we agree on. Clinton is a political genius. However, trying to paint me as a Blame America First militant extremist proves that a: you spend too much time watching Faux News (We spin. You comply.) and listening to Rush and Hannity. I am not anti-American. I am anti Bush. I do not support the Pretendident. I do however support the many brave men and women giving their lives needlessly in Iraq for Bush's lies. That seems to be a difference that those in the Shrubco camp can't or won't make.

>As I said earlier, the best thing that ever happened to

>Clinton was that the extreme personal hatred which the

>right-wing exhibited for him was so repulsive to the Political

>Center that it drove them into Bush's arms. The same thing is

>happening now, but in reverse. The deeply hateful personal

>animus being directed towards Bush is so vile, ugly and

>substance-less that his political enemies have become his

>greatest asset.

We've disproved this assertion in the other threads. There are indeed grounds and they are not baseless, but your blind devotion to the Resident in Chief renders you in capable of seeing it.

>As for your belief/hope that lots of body bags can defeat

>Bush, I think history proves you wrong. Americans are willing

>to fight bloody wars if they are convinced that doing so is

>necessary for their security.

>

>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about,

>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>perpetrators.

Perhaps you have some documentable proof that you can back this claim up with? Conservatives see 9/11 as a tool to use to wage war for oil and to further their agenda at the expense of the American economy and the lives of American soldiers. They are turning it inot a marketing too, dishonoring those who dies in theis most horrific of attacks. You don't think that scheduling the Republican convention to coincide with 9/11 was coincidence, do you?

>But most Americans see 9/11 as what it is - the Pearl Harbor

>of the war which Muslim extremists have waged, and are

>waging on our civilization, and they are prepared, as they

>have demonstrated by enthusiasitcally supporting 2 wars (so

>far) to engage in war and sustain causalties in order to

>obliterate that threat.

The war in Afghanistan was legitimate and worthy of support. The war in Iraq was based on lies and as more evidence comes to light, it shows that this war was merely a distraction to cover the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large. It allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and kill more people. There was never a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

>No matter what the economy is like, any Democrat who is

>percevied as being unwilling to fight this war aggressively or

>who fails to recognize the true magnitude of this war has

>absolutely no chance to win. Americans care about their

>pocketbooks to be sure, but they care more that they and their

>children aren't exploded by bombs on a bus or airplanes flying

>into buildings.

Liberals backed the Pretendident 100% in a legitimate war (Afghanistan) and are questioning him about an illegitimate one (Iraq). What could be American than that?

>He is SCREAMING at Democrats that if they continue to do what

>they are doing on Iraq, they will be perceived as completely

>anti-American, rooting against the U.S., and as being totally

>partisian, petty and filled with rage. That is all one hears

>now from the Democratic Party.

Then apparently your listening skills are on a par with your comprehension skills. What to hear totally partisan, petty and filled with rage? Listen to The Savage Weiner or better yet Ann Coulter. Models of today's compassionate conservatism.

>Clinton's political genius was to re-invent the Democratic

>Party as one filled with sensible, non-hateful,

>American-loving, reasonable, non-partisian policy makers who

>share the same values as America's heartland. Now that he's

>gone, the Democratic Party has reverted to its old ways and

>once again resembles a hate fest of Blame America First

>militant extremists in the BewareOfNick mold ("He lied about

>Iraq! Impeach him now!!").

Something we agree on. Clinton is a political genius. However, trying to paint me as a Blame America First militant extremist proves that a: you spend too much time watching Faux News (We spin. You comply.) and listening to Rush and Hannity. I am not anti-American. I am anti Bush. I do not support the Pretendident. I do however support the many brave men and women giving their lives needlessly in Iraq for Bush's lies. That seems to be a difference that those in the Shrubco camp can't or won't make.

>As I said earlier, the best thing that ever happened to

>Clinton was that the extreme personal hatred which the

>right-wing exhibited for him was so repulsive to the Political

>Center that it drove them into Bush's arms. The same thing is

>happening now, but in reverse. The deeply hateful personal

>animus being directed towards Bush is so vile, ugly and

>substance-less that his political enemies have become his

>greatest asset.

We've disproved this assertion in the other threads. There are indeed grounds and they are not baseless, but your blind devotion to the Resident in Chief renders you in capable of seeing it.

>As for your belief/hope that lots of body bags can defeat

>Bush, I think history proves you wrong. Americans are willing

>to fight bloody wars if they are convinced that doing so is

>necessary for their security.

>

>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about,

>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>perpetrators.

Perhaps you have some documentable proof that you can back this claim up with? Conservatives see 9/11 as a tool to use to wage war for oil and to further their agenda at the expense of the American economy and the lives of American soldiers. They are turning it inot a marketing too, dishonoring those who dies in theis most horrific of attacks. You don't think that scheduling the Republican convention to coincide with 9/11 was coincidence, do you?

>But most Americans see 9/11 as what it is - the Pearl Harbor

>of the war which Muslim extremists have waged, and are

>waging on our civilization, and they are prepared, as they

>have demonstrated by enthusiasitcally supporting 2 wars (so

>far) to engage in war and sustain causalties in order to

>obliterate that threat.

The war in Afghanistan was legitimate and worthy of support. The war in Iraq was based on lies and as more evidence comes to light, it shows that this war was merely a distraction to cover the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large. It allowed Al Qaeda to regroup and kill more people. There was never a connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda.

>No matter what the economy is like, any Democrat who is

>percevied as being unwilling to fight this war aggressively or

>who fails to recognize the true magnitude of this war has

>absolutely no chance to win. Americans care about their

>pocketbooks to be sure, but they care more that they and their

>children aren't exploded by bombs on a bus or airplanes flying

>into buildings.

Liberals backed the Pretendident 100% in a legitimate war (Afghanistan) and are questioning him about an illegitimate one (Iraq). What could be American than that?

>Then apparently your listening skills are on a par with your

>comprehension skills. What to hear totally partisan, petty

>and filled with rage? Listen to The Savage Weiner or better

>yet Ann Coulter. Models of today's compassionate

>conservatism.

Yes - you are the other side of this same coin. People like Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, the American Spectator, etc. were so filled with personal hatred and vile animus for Bill Clinton that they made him seem moderate and sensible and made their side seem extreme, shrill and hateful. Just like you, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, etc. are doing for George Bush.

>Something we agree on. Clinton is a political genius.

Then you should listen to him. He spent 8 years doing everything he could to shut people like you up -- to eliminate the exact kind of petty, partisian personal rhetoric which is all you know ("ShurbCo is a liar - impeach him now!!").

If you really think he's a genius, then pay attention to what he's saying. Here's what he said on Larry King about Iraq:

<<KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

KING: So do you share that view, Senator Dole?

DOLE: Oh, he's exactly right. Let's put the focus where it belongs.>>

AND:

<<KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what's put in front of you?

CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...

DOLE: That's right.

CLINTON: ... of biological and chemical weapons.>>

KING: Yes.

CLINTON: And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think.

In other words - he's telling you that all of your harping on whether we should have gone to war over Iraq, and the extreme nature of your accusations, are unwarranted, counter-productive and anti-American. "We should be pulling for America on this. " You say he is a political genuius, and yet everything that he did and embodied in teh last 8 years - the reasons for his success - you are the opposite of them.

>Then apparently your listening skills are on a par with your

>comprehension skills. What to hear totally partisan, petty

>and filled with rage? Listen to The Savage Weiner or better

>yet Ann Coulter. Models of today's compassionate

>conservatism.

Yes - you are the other side of this same coin. People like Michael Savage, Ann Coulter, the American Spectator, etc. were so filled with personal hatred and vile animus for Bill Clinton that they made him seem moderate and sensible and made their side seem extreme, shrill and hateful. Just like you, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, etc. are doing for George Bush.

>Something we agree on. Clinton is a political genius.

Then you should listen to him. He spent 8 years doing everything he could to shut people like you up -- to eliminate the exact kind of petty, partisian personal rhetoric which is all you know ("ShurbCo is a liar - impeach him now!!").

If you really think he's a genius, then pay attention to what he's saying. Here's what he said on Larry King about Iraq:

<<KING: President, maybe I can get an area where you may disagree. Do you join, President Clinton, your fellow Democrats, in complaining about the portion of the State of the Union address that dealt with nuclear weaponry in Africa?

CLINTON: Well, I have a little different take on it, I think, than either side.

First of all, the White House said -- Mr. Fleischer said -- that on balance they probably shouldn't have put that comment in the speech. What happened, often happens. There was a disagreement between British intelligence and American intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence that said it. And then they said, well, maybe they shouldn't have put it in.

Let me tell you what I know. When I left office, there was a substantial amount of biological and chemical material unaccounted for. That is, at the end of the first Gulf War, we knew what he had. We knew what was destroyed in all the inspection processes and that was a lot. And then we bombed with the British for four days in 1998. We might have gotten it all; we might have gotten half of it; we might have gotten none of it. But we didn't know. So I thought it was prudent for the president to go to the U.N. and for the U.N. to say you got to let these inspectors in, and this time if you don't cooperate the penalty could be regime change, not just continued sanctions.

I mean, we're all more sensitive to any possible stocks of chemical and biological weapons. So there's a difference between British -- British intelligence still maintains that they think the nuclear story was true. I don't know what was true, what was false. I thought the White House did the right thing in just saying, Well, we probably shouldn't have said that. And I think we ought to focus on where we are and what the right thing to do for Iraq is now. That's what I think.

KING: So do you share that view, Senator Dole?

DOLE: Oh, he's exactly right. Let's put the focus where it belongs.>>

AND:

<<KING: What do you do, Mr. President, with what's put in front of you?

CLINTON: Well, here's what happens: every day the president gets a daily brief from the CIA. And then, if it's some important issue -- and believe me, you know, anything having to do with chemical, biological or nuclear weapons became much more important to everybody in the White House after September the 11 -- then they probably told the president, certainly Condoleezza Rice, that this is what the British intelligence thought. They maybe have a difference of opinion, but on balance, they decided they should leave that line in the speech.

I think the main thing I want to say to you is, people can quarrel with whether we should have more troops in Afghanistan or internationalize Iraq or whatever, but it is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks...

DOLE: That's right.

CLINTON: ... of biological and chemical weapons.>>

KING: Yes.

CLINTON: And what I think -- again, I would say the most important thing is we should focus on what's the best way to build Iraq as a democracy? How is the president going to do that and deal with continuing problems in Afghanistan and North Korea?

We should be pulling for America on this. We should be pulling for the people of Iraq. We can have honest disagreements about where we go from here, and we have space now to discuss that in what I hope will be a nonpartisan and open way. But this State of the Union deal they decided to use the British intelligence. The president said it was British intelligence. Then they said on balance they shouldn't have done it. You know, everybody makes mistakes when they are president. I mean, you can't make as many calls as you have to make without messing up once in awhile. The thing we ought to be focused on is what is the right thing to do now. That's what I think.

In other words - he's telling you that all of your harping on whether we should have gone to war over Iraq, and the extreme nature of your accusations, are unwarranted, counter-productive and anti-American. "We should be pulling for America on this. " You say he is a political genuius, and yet everything that he did and embodied in teh last 8 years - the reasons for his success - you are the opposite of them.

>As I said earlier, the best thing that ever happened to

>Clinton was that the extreme personal hatred which the

>right-wing exhibited for him was so repulsive to the Political

>Center that it drove them into Bush's arms. The same thing is

>happening now, but in reverse. The deeply hateful personal

>animus being directed towards Bush is so vile, ugly and

>substance-less that his political enemies have become his

>greatest asset.

I agree with you 100%, but it is the extremists in the party, just as it was the extreme right who committed the most vile and baseless attacks on Clinton. It is a fairly meaningless generalization to say the entire Democratic Party are “Blame America First militant extremists”. Just as it is a meaningless generalization to say that the entire Republican are right-wing religious whack jobs. If feels good to say it, but it’s not worth much.

>As for your belief/hope that lots of body bags can defeat

>Bush, I think history proves you wrong. Americans are willing

>to fight bloody wars if they are convinced that doing so is

>necessary for their security.

Only time will tell. I can’t know for sure anymore than you can, but I think you are wrong. You challenged someone on another thread about a Vietnam mentality. I would suggest that you have a WWII mentality when the Vietnam model is much closer to reality.

You’re right that Americans are willing to fight bloody wars when they are convinced it is necessary for their own security. There were many reasons to go into Iraq but I don’t know a single person who felt individually threatened by them. It was an accumulation of reasons that made it the right thing to do, but personal safety was not one of them. Certainly not a big enough reason that it will sustain over the course of time.

I think it’s wrong to think that the Vietnam experience has not left a mark on the American psyche. Not so much the, “We can’t win.” kind of crap, but the “Why are we doing this?” kind of questioning. There is a lot of room for questioning here and the longer we take casualties, the more questions there will be.

The people of the heartland that you think are so important aren’t going to care about remote threats when their son and daughter comes home in a casket. The more people who are touched by these deaths that occur after the war is supposedly over, the more the tide will turn.

>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about,

>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>perpetrators.

That’s just crap. Of course they have a different perspective from the hawks, but it’s just crap to say they have forgotten or don’t appreciate the enormity of the threat. They simply have a different opinion on how it should be dealt with.

>As I said earlier, the best thing that ever happened to

>Clinton was that the extreme personal hatred which the

>right-wing exhibited for him was so repulsive to the Political

>Center that it drove them into Bush's arms. The same thing is

>happening now, but in reverse. The deeply hateful personal

>animus being directed towards Bush is so vile, ugly and

>substance-less that his political enemies have become his

>greatest asset.

I agree with you 100%, but it is the extremists in the party, just as it was the extreme right who committed the most vile and baseless attacks on Clinton. It is a fairly meaningless generalization to say the entire Democratic Party are “Blame America First militant extremists”. Just as it is a meaningless generalization to say that the entire Republican are right-wing religious whack jobs. If feels good to say it, but it’s not worth much.

>As for your belief/hope that lots of body bags can defeat

>Bush, I think history proves you wrong. Americans are willing

>to fight bloody wars if they are convinced that doing so is

>necessary for their security.

Only time will tell. I can’t know for sure anymore than you can, but I think you are wrong. You challenged someone on another thread about a Vietnam mentality. I would suggest that you have a WWII mentality when the Vietnam model is much closer to reality.

You’re right that Americans are willing to fight bloody wars when they are convinced it is necessary for their own security. There were many reasons to go into Iraq but I don’t know a single person who felt individually threatened by them. It was an accumulation of reasons that made it the right thing to do, but personal safety was not one of them. Certainly not a big enough reason that it will sustain over the course of time.

I think it’s wrong to think that the Vietnam experience has not left a mark on the American psyche. Not so much the, “We can’t win.” kind of crap, but the “Why are we doing this?” kind of questioning. There is a lot of room for questioning here and the longer we take casualties, the more questions there will be.

The people of the heartland that you think are so important aren’t going to care about remote threats when their son and daughter comes home in a casket. The more people who are touched by these deaths that occur after the war is supposedly over, the more the tide will turn.

>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs about,

>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>perpetrators.

That’s just crap. Of course they have a different perspective from the hawks, but it’s just crap to say they have forgotten or don’t appreciate the enormity of the threat. They simply have a different opinion on how it should be dealt with.

>I agree with you 100%, but it is the extremists in the party,

>just as it was the extreme right who committed the most vile

>and baseless attacks on Clinton. It is a fairly meaningless

>generalization to say the entire Democratic Party are “Blame

>America First militant extremists”. Just as it is a

>meaningless generalization to say that the entire Republican

>are right-wing religious whack jobs. If feels good to say it,

>but it’s not worth much.

Nobody is saying everyone in the Democratic Party exemplifies this BoN type of mindless, personal, hateful rage and screetching. There are absolutely responsible, reasoned individuals in both parties.

But it doesn't matter, becasue they aren't being heard. It really is astonishing to me that although this Administration does have genuine vulnerabilities and politically potent grounds on which to attack them (their mishandling of the economy, the growing deficit, the incusions into civil liberties), what the Democrats are screaming loudest about are patently over-the-top, personally accustatory issues relating to this Administration's good faith attempts to preserve our national security - mixed in with all sorts of extremist, ugly rhetoric and name-calling ("Unelected Fraud," "Shurb," continuously calling him stupid, etc).

It's as though Karl Rove is writing their speechs. As smart as he is, he couldn't have invented people like BoN if he tried - and it's those voices in your party which are being heard the loudest.

And to me, if I were a Democrat, I would be doing everything in my power to ensure that someone like Howard Dean doesn't get nominated, since he embodies every one of these attribtues sure to drive away everyone except the hardest-core ideologues in your party. You can with DC with him, and maybe Massachusettes, but that's about it.

>You’re right that Americans are willing to fight bloody wars

>when they are convinced it is necessary for their own

>security. There were many reasons to go into Iraq but I don’t

>know a single person who felt individually threatened by them.

> It was an accumulation of reasons that made it the right

>thing to do, but personal safety was not one of them.

>Certainly not a big enough reason that it will sustain over

>the course of time.

I think that Americans know that it's a very dangerous thing - in the middle of a war with viciously anti-American Arabs who want to destroy our entire country -- to allow a viciously anti-American dictator who has used chemical weapons before to simply develop them with impunity. I also think they know intiutively that gonig into the Middle East and changing it by force or persuasion is an absolute prerequisite to winning this war.

In light of 9/11, any reasonable person, in my view, would have to agree that it's better to be a little overly-sensitive to WMDs in the Middle East than a little under-sensitive. We may never know with certainty if Saddam has WMDs on the day we invaded, but there was nobody denying that the risk was non-existent, and Americans generally aren't willing to play games with the risk where the risk involves American-hating Arabs with nasty weapons.

>>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs

>about,

>>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>>perpetrators.

>

>That’s just crap. Of course they have a different perspective

>from the hawks, but it’s just crap to say they have forgotten

>or don’t appreciate the enormity of the threat. They simply

>have a different opinion on how it should be dealt with.

Well then, remind me - other than capturing OBL, what is the liberal plan for winning the war we are fighting with Muslim extremism?

>I agree with you 100%, but it is the extremists in the party,

>just as it was the extreme right who committed the most vile

>and baseless attacks on Clinton. It is a fairly meaningless

>generalization to say the entire Democratic Party are “Blame

>America First militant extremists”. Just as it is a

>meaningless generalization to say that the entire Republican

>are right-wing religious whack jobs. If feels good to say it,

>but it’s not worth much.

Nobody is saying everyone in the Democratic Party exemplifies this BoN type of mindless, personal, hateful rage and screetching. There are absolutely responsible, reasoned individuals in both parties.

But it doesn't matter, becasue they aren't being heard. It really is astonishing to me that although this Administration does have genuine vulnerabilities and politically potent grounds on which to attack them (their mishandling of the economy, the growing deficit, the incusions into civil liberties), what the Democrats are screaming loudest about are patently over-the-top, personally accustatory issues relating to this Administration's good faith attempts to preserve our national security - mixed in with all sorts of extremist, ugly rhetoric and name-calling ("Unelected Fraud," "Shurb," continuously calling him stupid, etc).

It's as though Karl Rove is writing their speechs. As smart as he is, he couldn't have invented people like BoN if he tried - and it's those voices in your party which are being heard the loudest.

And to me, if I were a Democrat, I would be doing everything in my power to ensure that someone like Howard Dean doesn't get nominated, since he embodies every one of these attribtues sure to drive away everyone except the hardest-core ideologues in your party. You can with DC with him, and maybe Massachusettes, but that's about it.

>You’re right that Americans are willing to fight bloody wars

>when they are convinced it is necessary for their own

>security. There were many reasons to go into Iraq but I don’t

>know a single person who felt individually threatened by them.

> It was an accumulation of reasons that made it the right

>thing to do, but personal safety was not one of them.

>Certainly not a big enough reason that it will sustain over

>the course of time.

I think that Americans know that it's a very dangerous thing - in the middle of a war with viciously anti-American Arabs who want to destroy our entire country -- to allow a viciously anti-American dictator who has used chemical weapons before to simply develop them with impunity. I also think they know intiutively that gonig into the Middle East and changing it by force or persuasion is an absolute prerequisite to winning this war.

In light of 9/11, any reasonable person, in my view, would have to agree that it's better to be a little overly-sensitive to WMDs in the Middle East than a little under-sensitive. We may never know with certainty if Saddam has WMDs on the day we invaded, but there was nobody denying that the risk was non-existent, and Americans generally aren't willing to play games with the risk where the risk involves American-hating Arabs with nasty weapons.

>>Most liberals have forgotten about 9/11 - they see it as a

>>sad, discrete little event that is nice to write songs

>about,

>>and that it would be good to capture the specific

>>perpetrators.

>

>That’s just crap. Of course they have a different perspective

>from the hawks, but it’s just crap to say they have forgotten

>or don’t appreciate the enormity of the threat. They simply

>have a different opinion on how it should be dealt with.

Well then, remind me - other than capturing OBL, what is the liberal plan for winning the war we are fighting with Muslim extremism?

It isn't just about WMD. It's about EVERYTHING. Bush and his Misadministration lie about EVERYTHING. The GOP cried about Clinton and railed agaisnt his lack of integrity, well, where's Shrub's integrity? Want to read more about his lies?

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

It isn't just about WMD. It's about EVERYTHING. Bush and his Misadministration lie about EVERYTHING. The GOP cried about Clinton and railed agaisnt his lack of integrity, well, where's Shrub's integrity? Want to read more about his lies?

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushlies.htm

>Democrats

are being perceived as anti-American,

>overly-partisian, and petty, and that is a sure recipe for defeat.

and you uncle brucie are percieved by your right wing conservative masters as a child molesting, family destroying,sex crazed pervert.

why pitiful little gnomes like you will do anything to sit at the massers table (as if he would even let y'all)is beyond any rational thought.

maybe you just get off on the humilation and abuse, lol i bet thats it; you pay the boys to shit and piss on ya because you believe unworthy little toads like you don't deserve any better.

people like you i hold in utter contempt.

is this post hate filled?........sure is .....i hate anyone that helps the wing attempt to keep me in my place.