Drudge Report breaking congressional testimony on pre-war Iraq intel

[fernandovaz]

I went to look at the headline on Al Gore's speech today as was mentioned in another thread, but that headline was no longer there and was replaced with this one.

[Skidmore]

1. Which one?

[fernandovaz]

2. which thread you mean?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=1020140&mesg_id=1020140

[KC21304]

3. Old, incomplete, selective, as usual for Drudge. Not news.

[INTELBYTES]

5. I'm not a fan of Drudge's politics...

But you can't discount his website. Most all he reports early will get reported in the mainstream within hours.

[RUexperienced]

7. The news biggies don't like Drudge, but they still use him

to tease people with their next big story.

[RobertSeattle]

8. Or at least parrotted on Right Wing Radio all day

[INTELBYTES]

4. Can I borrow someone elses candidate?

I think I give up on Clark after this. I don't think Dean is electable either. Maybe Kerry, who knows. I give up!

Here's the link by the way.
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

[RUexperienced]

6. I'm beginning to think Kerry might be the only electable one.

[mojo2004]

9. Oh no....

Revelations about Dean and Clark lately have been very disheartening. I think the race is going to become wide open with Dean and Clark falling.

[fernandovaz]

11. thanks for posting the link

I wasn't sure if it was ok to post a Drudge link here.

[Monte Carlo]

10. This is old news, and only problematic...

... if you buy the whole Democrats = anti-war thing, which I don't.

[mojo2004]

14. It is problematic...

if front-running candidates who claim to have been always against the war are later shown they were not.

[59millionmorons]

15. I am not voting for Clark

I am not voting for Clark because he was against the war. I am voting for him because I like him.

[fernandovaz]

21. why is that?

I know he has said some nice things that sound good since he started campaigning, but it is looking more and more like this is made up to get our votes. I seems opposite of what he said before he decided to run as a Democrat.

I am afraid he is trying to fool us so he can take the Democratic party away from the people. :(

[w13rd0]

12. Well...

...I guess those of that were asking what Clark's record had to say concerning his policies and positions have had some of those questions answered. I'm sure there's plenty more than BushRove has access to, and WILL use, in the general election, if need be...

[INTELBYTES]

13. Limbaugh is having a field day with this right now.

Yep, I'm listening to rush. I like to keep up with the other side to hear what they are saying. He is reveling in it, but probably drug induced.

[59millionmorons]

16. Hmm

Not like anyone listening to Rush is voting Dem anyway.

[fernandovaz]

17. that's not true.

I know many libs who listen to him. I hear that half of his audience are Democrats. They listen because they love to hate him! :)

[RebelOne]

18. I listen to Hannity because I love to hate him also.

[Cannikin]

19. Rush is dangerous...we would be unwise to turn a deaf ear..(pun intended)

I listen to hear the rovian spin that we have to combat.

[INTELBYTES]

20. demdem, I listen to him to be "educated" all the way around.

Know your enemy. Obviously rush monitors all Democratic mediums otherwise he would have no show. Dem's call in all the time and call him on the carpet for some of his outrageous statements. I listen to him, hannity, and savage, and occasionally boortz, to get the right wing slant. That way I'm educated enough to talk to my wingnut friends and show them the error of their way.

Your statement seems to accuse those of listening to his show and mentioning it on the DU as being freepers. That's not a fair assessment.

[59millionmorons]

22. Oh Please

Now show me were that is said. Good grief.

[TacticalPeek]

23. Breaking???

Clark's Congressional testimony has been up on the web for months, and sliced and diced in threads here repeatedly.

This isn't news, its a rehash. And the slimeball makes a true hash of it, merging together statements made months apart on multiple occasions. "MORE" my ass. I believe its called a hatchet job.

:shrug:

[Moderator]

24. Locking

Rules to start discussion threads in the General Discussion forum.

1. If you start a thread in the General Discussion forum, you must present your opinion in a manner that is not inflammatory, which respects differences in opinion, and which is likely to lead to respectful discussion rather than flaming. Some examples of things which should generally be avoided are: unnecessarily hot rhetoric, nicknames for prominent Democrats or their supporters, broad-brush statements about groups of people, single-sentence "drive-by" thread topics, etc.

2. The subject line of a discussion thread must accurately reflect the actual content of the message.

3. The subject line of a discussion thread may not include profanity or swear words, even if words or letters are replaced by asterisks, dashes, or abbreviations.

4. The subject line and the entire text of the message which starts the thread may not include excessive capitalization, or excessive punctuation.

5. If you post an article or other published content which is from a conservative source or which expresses a traditionally conservative viewpoint, you must state your opinion about the piece and/or the issues it raises.

6. You may not start a new discussion thread in order to continue a current or recent flame war from another thread. The moderators have the authority to lock threads in order to contain flaming on a particular topic to only one thread at a time.

7. Discussion topics that mention any or all of the Democratic presidential primary candidates are not permitted in the General Discussion forum, and instead must be posted in the General Discussion: 2004 Primary forum.

Thank you for your understanding and cooperation,
DU moderator