Clinton on Lieberman

[ProSense]

Clinton on Lieberman

Snip...

"Well, if I were Joe and I was running as an independent, that's what I'd say, too," Clinton said.

"But that's not quite right. That is, there were almost no Democrats who agreed with his position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.'"

"His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position, which was, 'Does it matter if they have weapons? None of this matters. ... This is a big, important priority, and 9/11 gives us the way of attacking and deposing Saddam.'"

Clinton said that a vote for Lamont was not, as Lieberman had implied, a vote against the country's security.

Clinton said other Senate Democrats who had voted to give Bush the authority to go to war - including his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York - who may be weighing a 2008 presidential run, had hoped that the threat of war would force former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. inspections.

"They felt, frankly, let down that the U.N. inspectors were not permitted to finish, and they were worried that we were devoting attention away from Afghanistan and the hunt for bin Laden and al Qaeda, which was a huge, immediate threat to our security in the aftermath of 9/11, as we saw this foiled British plot continues to be," Clinton said.

more...

http://www.kltv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5282264

[Skinner]

1. Man, I miss that guy.

Democrats in Connecticut should repeat this over and over:

"There were almost no Democrats who agreed (Lieberman's) position, which was, 'I want to attack Iraq whether or not they have weapons of mass destruction.' His position is the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld position."

[blm]

15. I missed Clinton saying this in 2003 and 4 when it could have HELPED,

instead of his continuous appreciation for the hard choices Bush had to make....blah, blah.

Kerry was saying since the invasion that Bush rushed to war and that he voted for the IWRs weapon inspections and increased diplomacy, but Bush ignored them in his rush to war. Clinton could have backed him up strongly on the truth of that assertion at the time, but chose not to.

[Skittles]

41. oh man, Skinner

when I saw that clip on TV I just sighed - gawd, it seems like decades since we had competence in the White House.

[Rowdyboy]

42. Remember back when we had a real president? Those were good days....

Thank you for giving those of us who miss those days a home.

[Larkspur]

2. The Hug is over! Amen!!

[invictus]

3. So when will Bill Clinton start campaigning for Ned? n/t

[Grateful for Hope]

4. A reminder of how it was to have an intelligent president.

I wondered why he campaigned for Lieberman, and found in the article that he explains it well:

Clinton said he campaigned for Lieberman because they had been friends for 35 years, and Clinton did not want the Democratic Party split over Iraq.

[TrueFunkSoldier]

5. Errrr...I smell bullshit!

Why not do the right thing, Bill? Why not campaign for someone, not because you're friends, but because you believe that they will represent their constituents well. Uhhh...how about someone who will put the well being of the country before partisan poliTRICKS? Uhhh...how about someone who won't blindly support an administration that lied us into a bloody conflict? Uhhhh...how about supporting someone who holds the position that most people in Connecticut and the country hold, rather than someone who succumbs to the neocon, PNAC position?

What about it, Bill? This is a man who chastised you on the floor of the United States Senate about a private, sexual affair with an intern, but doesn't have the tenacity or the moral eptitude to speak out against this evil, corrupt administration???

Why can't the DemoCraps just say: "Look, we gave the president the authority to use force IN CASE Saddam didn't comply with U.N. resolutions. We were convinced that Hussein had weapons of mass destructions based on the faulty intelligence that we were given by this administration. Now we realize that the intelligence was flawed and we were not given the truth! Therefore, we humbly apologize to the American people and to the world and want to make things right. Not only will we pull our troops out of Iraq and help the Iraqi's rebuild their infrastructure; we will also not support any candidate running for office who supports this illegal, immoral, despicable invasion of a sovereign nation who had NOT attacked us. Instead we will pursue Osama bin Laden and avenge the deaths of over 3,000 American citizens." End of discussion...

Now, how hard is that? Not hard at all. And the Dems will find that MOST Americans will agree with THEIR position, not Lil' Dumbya and his morally challenged, neocon, fascist cabal of Nazi's!!!!!

[karynnj]

6. Can Clinton be more transparent?

Kerry made this point daily - but the media repeated the "voted for the war" conflating the IWR vote and the entry into the war five months later. They ignored that in those 5 months, Saddam destroyed missiles at the inspectors' demand, the inspectors were given access to the Presidential palaces and they had found nothing. Kerry in January spoke out saying the inspectors should be given more time. There was less reason to fear Saddam in March 2003 than in October 2002.

Both Clintons were silent in the run up to the war. Even as no weapons were found (in 2003)- the Clintons, the two biggest voices of the party at that time - were silent. As the primaries started, and the vote was distorted- there was still silence. More damning, after Kerry became the obvious nominee - they stayed silent on this. They could have amplified Kerry's explanation, but they didn't.

Why now? To give Hillary the support that he didn't truly give Kerry

Kerry spoke up when it was clear Bush would attack, Bill and Hillary didn't.

As to telling the truth on the intelligence:
where was Hillary's signature on Kerry's letter demanding the investigation and mentioning the DSM - Oh, she didn't sign it then? Bill Clinton months later claimed he didn't know what the DSM were - he certainly didn't repeat Kerry's call.

As to getting out of Iraq, who have been 2 people not pushing the issue -
Bill and Hillary, neither of whom have supported any real plan - just vague words Hillary has not been a key player on any of the Democratic amendments.

Why do people keep forgiving this prodigal son? :grr:

[TrueFunkSoldier]

7. I don't understand it, either!

I've never been a fan of the Clintons. They are just as bad as LIEberman, in my view, and are just another part of this DLC cancer that is destroying the party and compromising the well being of all Americans by standing idly by and remaining quiet.

Look, the Dems gave the DLC strategy a chance. This strategy, a la, David Sirota, has FAILED repeatedly to garner votes for the Democratic Party or win election. We tried that way of thinking: being Republican-lite. It hasn't worked and it won't work.

Time for a New Way, Mr. Clinton!

[sandnsea]

8. Damn skippy

Fed up to my eyeballs with those two.

[KaptBunnyPants]

9. Well, for now at least, we need Clinton.

I don't want to be part of some ineffectual splinter Party, and Traitor Joe is out there calling for open civil war within the Party. We need all the moderate and conservative Democrats to understand that Joe lost because he failed to represent the interests of his constituents, not because of some nationalized effort to defeat all Democrats associated with the DLC, or who voted in support for the war.

This is, in many ways, a litmus test. All Democrats who are willing to be part of the new coalition for a progressive agenda at home and a saner agenda abroad must denounce Lieberman, or at the very least stay neutral. Aggressively opposing Lieberman is a sign of leadership, and those who won't do not have it.

Let Lieberman be the tragic story of the man who got to close to the Son, a reminder to Democratic politicians everywhere. If we can change the behavior of some of our shadier politicians, we won't have to replace them. They may be tools, but a tool can be put to good use, in the right hands.

[ProSense]

10. And there you are repeating the lie!

"Democrats...who voted in support for the war."

That would be Lieberman!

[KaptBunnyPants]

18. I stand corrected.

I meant the Iraq War resolution.

[Tom Joad]

12. Good points. Bill's use of continued sanctions against Iraq was a

crime against humanity. Some may see that as a "single-issue" focus, however. After all, he also helped the telecommunications industry and help poor media conglomerates! He helped the needy!

[Tom Joad]

11. The most gullible people in the world sit in the US Senate. Or?

"Clinton said other Senate Democrats who had voted to give Bush the authority to go to war - including his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York ... had hoped that the threat of war would force former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein to comply with U.N. inspections."

They believed GW Bush? They did not see it as merely asking the Senate for an ok to go to war?
And where were they when the tens of millions of people marched on the streets in Feb 2002 to oppose Bush's very obvious plans??? No support from them.

Frankly, i do not think they thought anything other than what the rest of us knew. that W. Bush would go to war, unless there was great political pressure to prevent it-- but thanks to people like lieberman, kerry, h. clinton, there was not that much pressure, only on the streets. Clinton bombed Iraq, continued deadly sanctions, and was in favor of regime change, thru force and pressure from the US. Clinton would have done things differently, but he was in favor of remaking the US for corporate interests, and had no qualms about killing masses of Arabs to accomplish that. Witness their support for the bombing of Lebanon. It was fine with Hillary.

[ProSense]

13. That is patent nonsense! This thinking is part of the problem n/t

[TrueFunkSoldier]

14. They can explain it away all they want...

...I'm still not buying the bullshit. Look, Bill Clinton had all the top intelligence experts. He had a very competent CIA working for him; a superb FBI; and a Counterterrorism Czar--Richard Clarke--who provided all the evidence in the world that al-Qaeda presented a gathering threat.

As early as Spring of 2001, BOTH Condi Rice and Colin Powell stated that Hussein was contained and that the sanctions were working well. We had very competent UN inspectors over in Iraq who DID NOT WANT TO LEAVE until they knew for sure. The Bush administration kicked the inspectors out before they had a chance to complete their work. The UN knew this.

As a former president, Bill had access to many of the classified intelligence, rather than the unclassified or "faked up" intelligence reports. I can't believe that despite all the evidence that his administration presented, he couldn't connect the dots and at least question the claims that the Bush administration were making. He should have come to the aid of his dear friend, Joe Wilson, when he was maligned by the neocons and the media. Still, he and his wife were silent.

I simply don't buy it. He knows that Hillary wants to be president. The saddest thing about the Clintons is that they lend credence to the claim that the The Right has been making for years: That the Clintons are merely out for themselves and political power.

I don't want to question Bill's motives. I think that his global efforts to combat AIDS is honorable. But I can't help but think that some of it is attempting to rebuild his image and legacy that has been tainted by impeachment and Monica.

[blm]

16. Actually, YOUR thinking was the danger - YOU chose to believe IWR gave

Bush all the authority he needed for war, when that was all BULLSHIT SPIN put out by Bush's mediawhores.

Kerry and others ttried to cut through the lie and told us that Bush rushed to war without due consideration of the IWR's guidelines, but the sheep on the right and the left kept repeating that IWR gave Bush all he needed. That helped Bush AND helped the media who then didn't have to report that Bush was actually acting in CONTEMPT of the guidelines in the IWR.

But - as long as there were so many on the left willing to NOT hold Bush accountable for violating the IWR, and instead blamed the IWR itself, and the Dems who voted for the resolution, well.... Rove couldn't have even hoped for a better reaction from the left.

And the left is STILL helping - even with Gonzalez testimony under oath that admitted IWR did not give Bush war powers, and the revelation of the signing statement attached to the IWR - many on the left are still touting the same old spin.

[TrueFunkSoldier]

19. Correction: It wasn't the so-called "Left" who are at fault...

it is precisely the DLC wing that refused to hold this administration accountable for their war crimes. As I understand it, 60% of Democratic Party voted against the authorization. The 40% who did were either worried that they would lose their seats in the election; or, were suckered by the DLC leadership; or, were running for President in '04--uh-hem, Kerry?

You can't blame the Left: we have John Conyers who has an impending impeachment resolution that only 96 Dems have signed on to. How often do you see Conyers on "Meet the Press"? We have Russ Feingold who bravely stood up against the administration, amid his own electoral vulnerability. There's Bob Graham, who had to leave politics, but is no less loved by his FL constituents. Also, other brave stalwarts for democracy like my former U.S. Senator, Max Cleland, who was "Shitboated," maligned, and who's face was morphed into Saddam Hussein.

Where were the DLC like Hillary, Dodd, LIEberman, and others when these brave souls were being attacked??

I've had it with the Repug wing of the Democratic Party.

It's time for a change.

On all other things, we agree, my friend...

[ProSense]

22. There has been a lot of political spin in characterizing the vote, much

of it political opportunism. There were several other amendments attempting to hold Bush accountable and all the Senators voted for more than one version of the resolution, and they all clearly show that the Senators believed the intelligence and wanted to put the best resolution forward to address the problem:

Levin Amdt. No. 4862

Statement of Purpose: To authorize the use of the United States Armed Forces, pursuant to a new resolution of the United Nations Security Council, to destroy, remove, or render harmless Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, nuclear weapons-usable material, long-range ballistic missiles, and related facilities, and for other purposes.


YEAs ---24
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Durbin Amdt. No. 4865

Statement of Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq.


YEAs ---30
Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-NE)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

The Senators didn't vote yes to these amendments authorizing force to disarm Saddam because they believed the opposite. They may have objected to wording or specific criteria in a particular verstion, but they would have voted no on all the amendments if they truly believe no WMD existed.

Mr. President, I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree post-9/11, we face, as the President has said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism and we must be very patient and very vigilant and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices. And with regard to Iraq, I agree that Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I agree, I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots from the international community -- whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations. And, yes, I agree, if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time.

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/feingold1.html

Continuing to mis-characterize the extent to which the faulty intelligence impacted all the Senators' beliefs is part of the problem. As the blog post in the OP asserts, there is nothing wrong with the position: Bush lied.

[desi]

23. There was also this.

I posted it in your other thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2780812&mesg_id=2780940

[blm]

24. My point is that those on the left who didn't correctly COMPREHEND the IWR

and its guidelines actually HELPED Bush and the RW media push the idea that there was nothing in the IWR that Bush needed to adhere to.

By repeating the meme Rove wanted - IWR was a vote for war, it gave Bush all the cover he needed and all the cover media needed to put all focus on "Dems who voted for war" instead of the guidelines of a resolution that Bush violated.

Though Kerry said many times that he voted for increased diplomacy and weapon inspections and pointed to Bush's "rush to war" when the IWR guidelines were working, the RW and the left put that statement on mute and refused to hear it.

[TrueFunkSoldier]

26. Why are you blaiming the Left???

I don't get your position at all. You are saying that it is The Left's fault and that The Left didn't speak out? That preposterous! It was precisely The Left that spoke out against this war. I don't consider Kerry a part of that constituency because he didn't speak out enough--or clearly articulate--his position on this "war." It's NOT The Left's fault; it's the DLC and other spinless DemoCraps, like LIEberman and others, who ran scared against this administration and the Repugs.

Why do you keep spewing this nonsense about The Left?

[blm]

27. Read it without a chip - THOSE ON THE LEFT who misread the IWR is not the

same as saying ALL on the left.

Fer chrissakes, I am as pink as they come - but I'm a comprehensive pinko. I can READ the IWR and COMPREHEND it.

Try reading what I actually posted instead of taking my use of the word left out of context.

[TrueFunkSoldier]

43. I read and comprehend what you're saying...

I'm suggesting that you simply were mincing words. Instead of there being "The Left," what you should have said was "some" Democrats misread the IWR. Of course the IWR was different from an explicit declaration of war. I think most on the so-called Left would agree. You shouldn't paint with a broad brush, 'tis all I'm saying. Without being hostile towards you or insulting you like you've insulted me, why don't you better articulate your point of view next time.

[ProSense]

28. That is exactly the problem:

continuing to say Kerry didn't speak out! Not only was he one of the ones forcefully speaking out, he did not mis-characterize the vote. Saying the vote was a vote in support of Bush's illegal war was wrong! It was confusing and made it harder to hold Bush accountable above the RW spin!

You said: "I don't consider Kerry a part of that constituency because he didn't speak out enough--or clearly articulate--his position on this "war."

That's pure nonsense! He spoke, I heard him (especially the calls to go to his website) and decided to support him as a result. Although the media/GOP spin was loud, there were ads and interviews. Taking the media at its word is the only way Kerry's criticisms could have been misconstrued as wavering! More:

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi

And the truth is that George Bush has made America weaker by overextending the armed forces of the United States, overstraining, overstraining our reserves, driving away our allies and running the most arrogant, reckless, inept and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0402/03/se.13.html

If the president would move in this direction, if he would bring in more help from other countries to provide resources and to train the Iraqis to provide their own security and to develop a reconstruction plan that brings real benefits to the Iraqi people, and take the steps necessary to hold elections next year, if all of that happened, we could begin to withdraw U.S. forces starting next summer and realistically aim to bring our troops home within the next four years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A35515-2004Sep20?language=printer

KERRY: This president has made, I regret to say, a colossal error of judgment. And judgment is what we look for in the president of the United States of America.

He also promised America that he would go to war as a last resort.

Those words mean something to me, as somebody who has been in combat. Last resort. You've got to be able to look in the eyes of families and say to those parents, I tried to do everything in my power to prevent the loss of your son and daughter.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/NEWS09/40930003

I will make a flat statement: The United States of America has no long-term designs on staying in Iraq.

KERRY: And our goal in my administration would be to get all of the troops out of there with a minimal amount you need for training and logistics as we do in some other countries in the world after a war to be able to sustain the peace.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/30/politics/main646640.shtml

And Iraq is not even the center of the focus of the war on terror. The center is Afghanistan, where, incidentally, there were more Americans killed last year than the year before; where the opium production is 75 percent of the world's opium production; where 40 to 60 percent of the economy of Afghanistan is based on opium; where the elections have been postponed three times.

KERRY: The president moved the troops, so he's got 10 times the number of troops in Iraq than he has in Afghanistan, where Osama bin Laden is. Does that mean that Saddam Hussein was 10 times more important than Osama bin Laden -- than, excuse me, Saddam Hussein more important than Osama bin Laden? I don't think so.

http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040930/NEWS09/40930003

“Getting it right also means drawing up a detailed plan with the clear milestone of transfer of military and police responsibilities to Iraqis after the December elections. The Administration’s plan should take into account both political and security objectives, including Iraqi force structure, and be specifically tied to a defined series of tasks and accomplishments. This plan must be more than dates and numbers - it must make clear to the Iraqi government that American patience is limited.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/cfm/record.cfm?id=239696&

The president must also announce immediately that the United States will not have a permanent military presence in Iraq. Erasing suspicions that the occupation is indefinite is critical to eroding support for the insurgency.

He should also say that the United States will insist that the Iraqis establish a truly inclusive political process and meet the deadlines for finishing the Constitution and holding elections in December. We're doing our part: our huge military presence stands between the Iraqi people and chaos, and our special forces protect Iraqi leaders. The Iraqis must now do theirs.

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/headlines/pdf/kerry_6_28_05_New_York_times.pdf

Senator Kerry has been one of the most forceful critics of the invasion. He is one of less than a handful of elected officials who have never let up, and he has been at it longer than most! Senator Kerry's deadline is the primary reason withdrawal is being discussed with seriousness today!

[Major Hogwash]

32. That's a damned good post right there.

With links and everything to back up what you're saying about Kerry.

Glad you're on our side.

[Tom Joad]

37. Don't you understand? Oppose the war, means you are really for it

Say that Bush, our wise and wonderful leader, should use whatever it takes to "defend America" and "enforce UN resolutions" in whatever way he sees fit, means you oppose war. Makes sense to me. Or would if i had access to the same drugs as others must be using.

[blm]

57. No - but not comprehending the IWR accurately led to baseless attacks

and distracted from Bush's ACTUAL violations of the resolution. They way YOU and many others allowed the media to direct your take on it as a blank check for Bush so why bother to hold him accountable for violating its guidelines?

[Tom Joad]

36. It was a stupid, foolish resolution, that the wiser ones opposed.

It is true that Congress never declared war, which is the only legal way the nation can go to war. But the obvious politics of that resolution was that it gave bush the decision to take steps to "defend America".

I never understand the logic of those who say it is those who protested on the streets, and screamed for a halt to prevent war, were the ones responsible for the war. Why wasn't Kerry giving support to the protesters on the streets.

Why did Kerry give his blessing to the Israel's massive bombing of Lebanon?
Is it because he is a warmongering pig? Or does it just look like that?

[politicasista]

40. No, the wiser ones opposed it from the get go cause

they knew what the vote was for and didn't buy into the RW media spin and let Bush off the hook for violating the resolution like many on the left continue to do.

Why don't you put your blame and anger at the criminal administration and support the calls for withdrawal "wiser" Dems are calling for instead of lashing out on Democrats that held Bush accountable from the start.

[TrueFunkSoldier]

44. AMENNNNN!!!!!!

For the Kerry apologists, I STILL think it's bullshit! Yes, Kerry may have given some speeches. Yes, he may have provided some statements explaining his vote. But when it came down to CLEARLY ARTICULATING WHY HE VOTED FOR THE RESOLUTION, he DID NOT adquately explain why he "voted for it before he voted against it!" All he had to say was that he, CONGRESS, and the AMERICAN PEOPLE WERE LIED TO!!! That's all he had to say!! None of this "misled" shit. All I kept hearing him say is that "the president MISLED us." NO!!!! Use the word LIE!! LIE!! LIE!! Every pundit kept asking the Democrats why they refuse to call the president a fucking LIAR!! After all, that's what they called Clinton! I think Kerry would have come across as more sympathetic if he fought harder. I don't care what any of you say. He was a weak-ass candidate who allowed Bush to get away with a long list of despicable crimes, and was slow to defend himself and fight back! Kerry represents all the milquetoast DemoCraps out there who refused to fight! The only ones who really did fight were those on THE LEFT!! Period! Feingold knew what he was voting against. Bob Graham knew what he was voting against! Max Cleland knew what he was voting against! Don't tell me that this is THE LEFT'S fault! That's a freakin' lie!!!! PERIOD!

[ProSense]

45. "I STILL think it's bullshit!" And this is still nonsense!

Feingold emphatically supported Israel's position. You can ignore all the facts posted in this thread for an illusion, but your post is nothing but spin!

[TrueFunkSoldier]

48. I didn't agree with Feingold's support of Israel's actions...

...but...err...we're discussing the IWR, NOT Israel. Feingold also supported Alito. I don't agree with everything he does, but he is a principled politician. He's only one of few of them left, which is much more than I can say about the Clintons or Kerry...all of whom are simply opportunists. Feingold has much his political aspirations in jeopardy many times in the face of opposition, but he has succeeded every time.

[ProSense]

49. "Feingold also supported Alito." Huh?

Do you know anything about Feingold?

[TrueFunkSoldier]

53. Go check his record!!

Then come back and speak to me...

I misspoke. I meant to type Justice Roberts, not Alito. Still, it's bad either way you look at it...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/thebeat?bid=1&pid=52420

[ProSense]

58. You're telling me to go check his record, but you misspoke? n/t

[sampsonblk]

65. Did Bush Break the law (IWR) or not?

Bush attacked Saddam, claiming authority under the IWR and UN resolutions passed years prior, so this is easy to clear up once and for all. Why don't the people who were ostensibly duped - Kerry et al - just plead their case that Bush had no authority to invade Iraq and that the war is unauthorized and illegal under the IWR?

Seems easy enough, or am I missing something?

[oasis]

17. Clinton still has the magic. Be prepared to see a lot more of him. (eom)

[desi]

20. ''Be prepared to see a lot more of him.'' I certainly hope so...

Why do I get the impression that some of the Clinton detractors would be a lot happier today if Poppy would have defeated President Clinton, the best president in my lifetime?

[TrueFunkSoldier]

25. Not me!

I'm glad Clinton spanked Pappy Bush's ass. The problem that I have with the Clintons is that they are complicit in this so-called "war" by not standing up to this administation, despite all the evidence and intelligence they had at their disposal. And STILL, they remain silent. Only now--when Hillary is running for office and grooming herself for 2008--do we FINALLY hear something from the Clintons. I just don't see them as any different that your average politician: everything is done on behalf of political expediency. I know you disagree, but that's how I and many see it.

Still, if given the choice between either Clinton and Lil' Dumbya, with NO OTHER choice? Hill and Bill have my unwavering support!

[oasis]

29. Plenty of "evidence and intelligence" was juiced up by Bushco

to misinform congress before the IWR vote. But.... you knew that.:think:

[TrueFunkSoldier]

46. That's right!

And if the evidence was juiced up BEFORE the IWR vote, then why vote FOR the IWR??!! It makes no sense and neither the Clintons, Kerry or any other syncophantic DemoCrap can explain WHY they voted for it...and are now against it after people like Bob Graham was literally screaming that something was amiss with the so-called evidence. There was all the "evidence" that pointed to miscreant and flimpsy information. Again, with Kerry and others serving on the subcommittee that reviewed this evidence, knowing fully well that some of it was flawed or questionable at best, there's absolutely no excuse for moving ahead. Even Tim Russert--who I can't stand--made this point to Kerry and he couldn't explain away the fact that he continue to move forward on the IWR knowing fully well that there were some questionable information. I don't buy it. I just don't. Stop blaming The Left for the irresponsible way that the DLC and other spineless Dems behaved. They should have pushed the administration harder and they didn't. Why? Because a freakin' election was coming up that's why!

[ProSense]

47. "Kerry or any other syncophantic DemoCrap"

So you're saying this helped defeat Bush in 2004?

[TrueFunkSoldier]

50. I'm a true blue Democrat! Not a DemoCrap!

I think there's a difference and there needs to be a new way of thinking within the party. David Sirota is right. Eric Alterman is right. Look, the Democratic Party can't expect to win elections if they refuse to change their philosophy and stick to their principles. Kerry has improved. He is certainly speaking out a lot more than when he ran for president. He's becoming a firebrand only NOW. I think he learned his lesson, and he even admitted himself that he should have responded more forcibly and much quicker to the Swiftboat Liars' charges against him. He should have explained better his reasons for supporting the IWR. If there was confusion about what the IWR meant, then he should have explained what it meant in CLEAR terms. He certainly had a number of opportunities when he made the rounds on the Sunday talk shows and the question was presented to him many times. I still think he failed.

He should have explained much better his reasons for the $80b appropriations bill. He admits that he didn't, and for that, he lost many souls. You can't blame that on The Left. That's Kerry's fault. I don't give the Clintons a pass, either. Only now is Hill and Bill speaking out. They should have spoken out much sooner. Instead, you got Bill pledging support for the Iraqi invasion earlier on. Hill, too, was a cheerleader. There's simply no excuse for this. It's irresponsible and we must hold them accountable.

[ProSense]

51. That's crap. Your posts are all over the place!

You say Kerry has improved, yet you refer to him as a "syncophantic DemoCrap.

Read the facts!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2780470&mesg_id=2781104

[TrueFunkSoldier]

52. I said he WAS!!!

Maybe you need to read better and stop attacking me. I said he WAS!!!!!! It doesn't excuse his past voting behavior and the fact that he allowed the most incompetent, corrupt administration EVER to beat him! There's so excuse!!!!

[ProSense]

54. Maybe you can stop calling people

"Kerry apologists." I still suggest you read the facts!

[TrueFunkSoldier]

55. If you're not a Kerry apologist, then...

don't take offense. I read what Kerry had to say, but I still don't agree that he fought hard enough or gave clear explanations for his votes. I'm not the ONLY one who shares this opinion. Many people--even liberals--agree with me. It's my opinion. You don't have to like it, and NO I will NOT apologize. I don't expect for you to change your opinion and that's fine.

[ProSense]

59. Anyone can claim anything, but the facts are there for all to see! n/t

[politicasista]

39. delete n/t

wrong spot

[politicasista]

21. Interesting...kick

and recommended. :kick:

[dolstein]

30. With all due respect, Lieberman's position is different

from Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc.

Cheney and Rumsfeld wanted to get rid of Hussein because they wanted to install a government that would be friendly to American business interests and permit the installataion of permanent military bases. They couldn't care less about democracy and human rights.

Lieberman, in the (pre-McGovern) Democratic tradition, supports the use of military force in the interests of democracy and human rights. In his mind, it is perfectly legitimate to use military power to remove dictators from power, particular when they commit acts of genocide against their own people. He views the war against tyrants like Hussein as an extention of earlier wars against fascism and communism. Democrats didn't seem to have a problem with this view when it came to Kosovo, and Democrats supported a measure in the 90s which estabished a policy in favor of regime change in Iraq.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dr Fate]

61. Who cares? He is not a Democrat anymore.

You may as well split hairs over how Nader's record has been distorted too- who cares?

[cmkramer]

31. FWIW

Even when he was campaigning for him, Clinton always said that Joe's position on Iraq was not one that Democrats in the main agreed with.

And if he campaigns for Lamont, don't expect any Joe bashing. I predict he'll do pretty much what he did when he spoke about Lamont during his Lieberman rally -- he'll say he's a good guy who believes he's right, but our guy is better.

[dolstein]

33. Having endorsed Lieberman in the primary, it's going to be . . .

a little difficult for Clinton to convincingly argue that Lieberman is somehow an unacceptable choice for Democratic voters, much less independents and Republicans.

[ChipsAhoy]

64. Another good point. n/t

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

35. You do! Look what you chose to do with your life! n/t

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

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

[ProSense]

60. "Need I say more?" Yes, what does that have to do with Senator Kerry? n/t

[TrueFunkSoldier]

66. ProSense, read my posts...

I already explained why I think Kerry *was* a milquetoast Dem. Like other spineless, milquetoast Dems like our friend, Landrieu and others, he supported the IWR, knowing fully well that the information provided was questionable! Only NOW when public opinion has turned against this so-called "war," has he become more vocal and surprisingly CLEARER on his position. In my view, he was NOT as forceful or clear when he discussed the invasion during his campaign. He himself admitted this: "I made a mistake in how I spoke of the war; Bush made a mistake in going to war!" That's not EXPLAINING WHY he was against it. Kerry did this quite a lot. He should have been SHOUTING Osama bin Laden from the rooftops and all the commercials should have focused on bin Laden! Period! Yes, he mentioned Osama during the debates and he questioned Bush, but he should have kept repeating over and over again. Every commercial! Every speech! WHERE'S OSAMA BIN LADEN??!!!???!!!

If you don't understand what I've been saying, then I don't know how to explain it more. Like Kerry, both Clintons were irresponsible in how they talked about Iraq. I applaud Kerry for now speaking out against the invasion, but if only he had been this articulate during the campaign...oh, well...

...and if ONLY he had really fought for voter rights in Ohio. If only he had spoken up when there was ample evidence of election fraud. He did not, and even Edwards was disturbed by Kerry's lack of conviction.

[ProSense]

67. "Only NOW when public opinion has turned against..." Nonsense!

I will not concede that point because it's nonsense. Senator Kerry has agressively and consistently opposed the war, called for an intelligent and rational response to terrorism, emphasizing that the focus should be on bin Laden. Senator Kerry has been doing this for years! Read his speeches, read anything about him.

[Imagevision]

62. Bill Clinton backed Bush invading Iraq, so wtf is he talking about?

Clinton said way back when, "Saddam has wmd's and I believe hw will use them" so Bill, stop the freegin tap dance, your making it worse for Hillary!!

[ChipsAhoy]

63. Bill Clinton backed Bush invading Iraq

Many Democratic leaders backed Bush invading Iraq. Not just Clinton.

But, you have a good point. People have very long memories and we don't want to come across as flim flam.