I've been engaged in the "Who fought terrorism?" battle since 9-11-01.

[blm]

Some of you all have been, too.

It SHOULD have been engaged at the highest levels BEFORE the 2002 election.

At the HIGHEST LEVELS.

Instead, WE fought the battle day in and day out for YEARS.

WE did. Against the corporate broadcast media who ignored us in their eagerness to blame Clinton. Against the many books that blamed Clinton. Against the entire RW message machine.

WE fought them for 5 years.

We all knew this battle needed to be engaged before the 2002 election. Why didn't Carville and Begala? Why did they advise Clinton to not defend himself till now?

They sure seem happy he spoke out now, as we all are, but why wait SO long?

[Q]

1. Yes...

...it was a bit tiresome pointing out the obvious. The truth didn't matter...only 'winning'. The New Dems played along...and they're STILL losing.

bittersweet.

[Totally Committed]

3. The New Dems played along...

and they're STILL losing.

Bittersweet? Nah... STUPID (or, stupid, like a bunch of foxes... still can't figure that out.) I just know this collusion needs to be stopped, and the enemy has GOT to be engaged actively, vocally, and with all our might if we are to keep pur Party and our Country.

TC

[blm]

5. I don't know how many played along and how deeply they were lied to

Remember, with Clinton supporting Bush on Iraq, it helped to make it appear that there WAS important info that a president had access to that lawmakers did not.

Clinton fed that perception, to the other Dems who only saw PARTIAL documents and most importantly, to the public.

[blm]

6. It took precious time from the debates we NEEDED to have.

.

[Armstead]

2. Past is past -- What they do from here on out is what matters

For the last six years, I've felt the same way.

It actually started in Dec. 2000, when the Demoocrats decided to keep their yaps shut to help "heal" the country after the election fiasco.

Meanwhile, Bush was appointing controversial right wing zealots and authoritarians like John Ahscroft. In other words, Democrats were being "conciliatory" while Bush was literally thumbing his nose at them.

It's been a downhill slide from then.

But what matters is whether they have finally learned their lesson now, and are going to start hitting back. If they follow Clinton's lead now, and start to actually show some real fangs to the GOP, we all ought to support that.

But if they backslide into "bi-partisan" and "conciliatory" however...

[blm]

4. Carville and Begala crowing about it is nauseating. Clinton supported Bush

publically for his entire first term, and even pretended he never heard of the Downing Street Memos, while OTHER DEmocrats were confronting Bush CONSTANTLY even after 9-11. And NOW Carville and Begala say that the Democrats need a spine like Clinton?

HORSESHIT! Carville and Begala want ALL Democrats to wait FIVE YEARS before they knock down the lies against them, especially on the most important issue of our time?