TNR Calls Dean Out For Newt-Lite Hypocrisy

[DrFunkenstein]

WHO NEEDS FACTS WHEN YOU'VE GOT MUD?
by Franklin Foer

Candidate: Howard Dean
Category: General Likeability
Grade: D

Howard Dean's repudiation of his alleged similarities to Newt Gingrich is not without comedic value. At the same time he has deemed comparisons to former speaker below-the-belt, he repeatedly blasts his fellow Democrats as "Bush-lite."

But the Gingrich shot seems to have gotten under his skin. On this morning's "Today" show, he lashed out: "Even Wes Clark, who was a Republican until 25 days ago, could not reasonably be compared to Newt Gingrich." This is a cheap shot worthy of a quick dissection. For starters, Wes Clark has declared time and again that he was a "non-partisan" during his military career. He says that he voted for Clinton and Gore. Howard Dean knows that Wesley Clark was never a registered, partisan Republican. Bob Schieffer even pointed it out to him last Sunday. But why let these facts get in the way of a good smear?

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=794

<>

[DJcairo]

1. Indeed, if you're Dean you don't need facts you just need money like Bush

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

26. Lol.

Money. It's green. When hundreds of thousands donate it, it makes a big pile.


In case you haven't noticed.

[MrPeepers]

60. In case you haven't noticed,

Bush has a hell of a lot more of it than Dean does. It being so very important, I guess we don't have a shot in hell.

Peepers

[kang]

2. Glad TNR caught that one, but they're pretty good at nailing

everybody. I'm sure glad I didn't have graders like them while I was in school!

[deutsey]

3. I'm reading Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?"

I was never a big fan of TNR, but what Alterman says about TNR and its neocon background since the '80s doesn't exactly make me put a lot of faith in what they say about anything.

[flpoljunkie]

20. Attacking the messenger does not answer the question. Was Dean truthful

when he said that "Clark was a Republican until 25 day ago."

Dean seems intent on burning all his bridges with the other Democratic Presidential candidates with his "shoot from the hip" utterances that bear no relation to the truth.

[deutsey]

25. My intention was not to attack any messenger

I was saying I don't like TNR and that Eric Alterman is showing me (in great detail, incidentally), what I already felt about the publication. I don't give a damn what they say about Dean or anyone else, for that matter.

I like Dean, but I have criticisms of him (just as I do of Kerry, Kucinich, and Clark et al.). My vote is still for Dean, however, for reasons I have determined on my own and posted here DU on (too?) many occasions. I don't need some faux liberal publication like TNR to make me reconsider what I've determined independently on my own and that is re-affirmed daily by my volunteer work off these boards in what many consider to be the real world.

In fact, I was in a head-on collision a couple days ago and, although I think my values and perspective have always been in their proper place, the accident has brought them into even sharper focus for me. I wasn't even going to post here because, frankly, I think about 90% of the posts in this forum are counterproductive or meaningless in the larger scope of things (an insight my accident also helped to clarify for me).

[Andromeda]

30. I hope you were not seriously injured,

deutsey. You sound very rational to me so I assume you are recovering nicely from your accident. It's funny, isn't it, how much clearer things seem when you have had something catastrophic happen to you.

I don't care what TNR says about Dean either and I intend to support him all the way because I think he is more knowledgeable on the issues than the other candidates and I like the way he stands up for what he believes. Some of the other candidates who were mute are now speaking out against Bush and I credit Howard Dean with that.

When you are fighting to get your country back you elect a fighter to get the job done. I know Dean is not perfect and have not agreed with everything he's said but he is by far the best candidate to run against Bush.

[stickdog]

29. You mean like the truth?

"Graham's a second tear candidate."

"Kerry's trying to have it both ways on the war."

"Clark was a Republican until 25 days ago."

The only inaccuracy Dean has made was in not realizing that Edwards was actually stupid enough to defend the Iraq War to a group of California Democratic activists.

[Bertrand]

54. The fact is is that Clark has never been a Republican in his life

Arkansas didnt even allow registration until 1996, and the last time he voted for a Republican was in 1988. Your claim that Dean not only making the assertion that Clark was a Republican, let alone one 25 days ago, is accurate is obviously wrong.

Dean lied on this issue.

[w4rma]

67. …part-owner of The New Republic, gave $2,000 to Bush-Cheney '04 Inc.

WHEN YOU'VE LOST THE NEW REPUBLIC . . . Tapped's new favorite thing is the Federal Election Commission database where you can type in anyone's name and see if he or she has donated money to political candidates or parties. (Tapped's old favorite thing was The Washington Post's home buyer database, where you could learn how much your neighbors spent for their apartments.) So check out this nifty little listing (go here and search for “Steinhardt, Michael”) that we discovered while trying to see which big-shot New Democrats were supporting which Democratic presidential candidates: According to this list, Michael Steinhardt, former Democratc Leadership Council stalwart and part-owner of The New Republic, gave $2,000 to Bush-Cheney '04 Inc. on June 20, 2003.

Now, we know that there's often little direct relationship between a magazine owner's politics and the views of its writers, but it is a notable thing when one of the more prominent New Democrats around starts financing the continuation of the Bush administration.
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2003/07/index.html#001288

[T Roosevelt]

4. TNR had lost all credibility prior to this

and now they've simply confirmed it...

[cprise]

10. Agreed, they're history.

Dean was gracious when he pointed out Clark's recent switch. He did not mention Clark's Bush-era fundraising for the GOP, or that Clark still hasn't registered as a Democrat.

Dean knows the fundraising fact alone would repel many people from the very idea of sending their money to Clark.


Add to that his (also very recent) desire to work for Rove (turned down), and his lobbying for consumer-information suppliers for Total Information Awareness-type programs.

[DrFunkenstein]

15. Graciously Undermining His Legitimacy

Nice of you to do the same.

[quinnox]

17. Of course

If any publication criticises Dean, they lose all legitimacy. Uh huh.

[kang]

13. Whoa...where is this coming from?

I understand TNR's moderate compared to the Nation, but geez man it's still advocates liberal positions and offers some of the best criticisms of the GOP. I'm just saying that they've got some good writers and I'm asking that you don't consider everything from them as garbage...there's only so many liberal political magazines as it is.

[DrFunkenstein]

14. To #3-5 Posts, Here's A Definition of Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3.Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Now, why does the source - let alone the financial backers of the source - have anything to do with the validity of the argument?

Namely that what is good for the goose doesn't seem to be good for the gander.

[Jim Sagle]

5. This thread ain't nuthin' but DLC shit and neither is TNR.

[quinnox]

6. Nice catch by TNR

How long will Dean continue to use this false smear that Clark was a Republican?

Dean is getting more and more desperate and making rookie mistakes.

[CMT]

7. well he did vote Republican...

and sing the praises of Reagan and the Bush team two years ago.

Besides, you forgot to mention that it isn't only Dean who has brought this up of late but Kerry, Gephardt, Lieberman, Edwards, and Gov. Vilsak of Iowa and the chairman of the Arizona Dem party. But it is easier to say it is only Dean.

[DrFunkenstein]

8. Did You Bother To Read?

Clark voted for Clinton and Gore.

[CMT]

18. of course I know that

Did you bother to read his post which I was responding to the fact that more than Howard Dean has questioned Clark's Democratic credentials.

Yes he voted for Clinton and Gore and then attended a GOP fundraiser in June, 2001 and had sweet nothings to say about the Bush team and Reagan.

[Kahuna]

37. But what has he been saying about the bushistas for the past

year? Has he been singing their praises for the past year? No he hasn't. He's been hitting them where it hurts. I know it. You know it and dean knows it. Dean isn't saying, Clark was a republican until two years ago. He's saying that Clark was a republican until 25 days ago.

The fact is that when Dean says that Clark was a republican until 25 days ago, he is intentionally lying and misleading people. How can you defend that?

[quinnox]

12. Dean is the only one to say definitively "Clark was a Republican"

none of the other candidates have said that, to my knowledge.

[stickdog]

28. Yep. Because the DNC & DLC told them not to or ELSE! (NT)

[mbali]

44. Speak for yourself, Howard . . .

Why doesn't Howard Dean simply tell voters what HE believes, where HE stands, how HE sees things? His insistence upon characterizing the other candidates - invariably in negative terms - not only makes him appear petty and mean-spirited, it also suggests that he doesn't respect the voters he's trying to attract, believing them to be unable to intelligently make comparisons between between the candidates unless HE tells them the difference.

[no name no slogan]

45. So? Dean admits voting for Jim Jeffords when Jeffors was an (R)

If Dean's hoping to smear anyone else as a pseudo-republican, he better check his own record first. Dean has admitted to voting for Jim Jeffords when Jeffords was still a Republican.

Sure, Jeffords wasn't as bad as Trent Lott, but it was still another R in the Senate, which has a HUGE influence over committee assignment, committee chairmanship, control of the Senate, etc.

People in glass houses etc.

[clar]

9. For chrissake

dr. funk. You know better than this. And I should too. Right back at you. Or as TNR says:



ET TU, KERRY?
by Joshua Kurlantzick

Candidate: John Kerry
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: D

In a piece for New Hampshire's Union Leader today, John Kerry blasts Howard Dean and Dick Gephardt for supposedly abandoning the economic legacy of Bill Clinton. Kerry charges that the congressman and the former governor are discarding Clinton's centrist policies by vowing to repeal all middle-class tax cuts.
But Kerry doesn't mention that on another key component of Clinton's economic moderation, trade--Clinton expended major political capital to bring the United States into NAFTA--he has walked nearly the same linke as Gephardt and Dean. Just like Dean and Gephardt, Kerry has too often engaged in bouts of protectionist rhetoric when dealing with &hellip click here to continue.

Edited

[DrFunkenstein]

19. TNR Has No Credibility

;-)

After accusing Kerry of protectionist rhetoric, TNR posted this (jabbing him once again for Chicago):

DON'T BACK DOWN
by Clay Risen

Candidate: John Kerry
Category: Political Courage
Grade: B

Yesterday John Kerry laid out his economic platform to the Economic Club of Detroit, and it was good: tax breaks to keep jobs onshore, worker training, R & D investment, tougher trade negotiations to ensure that our partners are meeting their labor and environmental obligations.

And--surprise, surprise--Kerry didn't miss the opportunity to take on Howard Dean, who supports pulling out of trade deals if our trading partners aren't up to our own labor and environmental standards. Kerry told his audience that "the unfortunate thing is that Howard Dean knows that what he's proposing is just not possible and that it would send our economy into a tailspin."

It took a good deal of courage for Kerry to come to Michigan, which has lost 20 percent of its manufacturing jobs in three years, and reaffirm his commitment to free trade so strongly, saying that "the global economy is here and its here to stay. Our choice is either to win the race for the jobs of the future or to get run over by our competitors."

What he didn't do, though, is clear up some of his previous statements that run almost exactly counter to his current position--namely, the panderfest he delivered at July's AFL-CIO convo. There, he said that "if I were voting today, I would vote against" CAFTA, a NAFTA counterpart for Central America.

And it's telling, of course, that while this time he was in Detroit, he wasn't speaking to unions, but to business executives. Of course, Kerry might respond that voting against CAFTA wouldn't be inconsistent with his platform because the agreement is too soft on the environment and trade.

But that would only indicate an all-too convenient flexibility in his position, one he can tailor to fit different audiences. Yesterday, Kerry sounded like Clinton; in Chicago, like Dean. So while Kerry's economic platform is worth commending, let's hope he sticks with it.

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=749

Note: Please leave links in the future.

[batman]

11. TNR calls Kerry out for, "failure to inspire"....

Candidate: John Kerry
Category: General Likeability
Grade: C

Why did Kerry lose his front-runner status? An important factor, I think, is that while his campaign looked great on paper, his stump style has utterly failed to inspire. Slate's Will Saletan got at a key part of Kerry's problem this week, writing that his speeches "are invariably pointlessly ornate." That's the general problem. But it's perfectly illustrated by a specific habit worth noting. Kerry constantly resorts to a word that I would advise him to banish permanently from his vocabulary. That word is "extraordinary." ;)

[DrFunkenstein]

16. I Agree With Premise

Kerry's speeches in the past were unnecessarily wordy.

Now, why are you trying to change the subject?

[Cha]

21. I stopped my subscription to tnr 2 years ago....too neo con for me.

I would say it's a compliment that these neowhores don't like my candidate. There are plenty of People who I Do respect who thinks Howard Dean is a very likable guy!

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030901&s=pollitt

"Maybe so. But I've talked to quite a few Dean supporters, including mainstream Democrats, lapsed voters, flaming leftists, Naderites, gay activists, civil libertarians, anti-death penalty lawyers, pro-single payer health professionals and even a surprising number of Nation staffers. I have yet to find one who mistakes Dean for Eugene Debs, or even for Paul Wellstone, whose line about belonging to the "democratic wing of the Democratic Party" Dean likes to borrow. They've gone for Dean because, alone among the major Democratic contenders, he has taken Bush on in an aggressive and forthright way, because he's calling the craven Democratic Party to account and because they think he can win. "I have no illusions that Dean is a true progressive," said one young graduate student who describes himself as a leftist, "but I don't care. I just want to beat Bush. If Dean has the momentum, I say, go for it." That word "momentum" comes up a lot."

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/politics/national/n_8376/index.html
"An upbeat man with a ready smile, Dean exudes coiled energy and ambition when I meet with him for the first time, at the Regency Hotel, in January. Having reluctantly upgraded to a new Paul Stuart suit, he is wooing major Democratic fund-raisers: breakfast with hotelier Jonathan Tisch this morning, later a meeting with financier Roy Furman, and a dinner in his honor at the home of billionaire George Soros. I ask Dean for a preview of his political sales pitch, and it’s like hitting the fast-forward button. “I’m very direct and very blunt,” he begins. “The pitch is that I’m different from every other candidate in the race, I’m a governor, I’m the only one who’s ever balanced a budget, I’m the only one who doesn’t support the president on Iraq. They can talk about health care; I’ve done it. They can talk about land conservation; I’ve done it. They can talk about early-childhood intervention; I’ve done it.”

edit~typo

[DrFunkenstein]

22. But Do You Disagree With The Argument?

And why?

We all know you support Dean, and cancel subscriptions to anyone that doesn't, but can you bother to address the point of this thread?

[Duder]

23. It was addressed...

...in post #5. :)

[batman]

24. I do and here's why.

Dean did not address the Bush lite comment to a specific candidate. He did not EVER (in a debate) call Kerry, Gep and others (Bush lite) for voting to authorize the Iraq war. He could very well have done so.

He did use the term "Bush Lite" but, he did so in such a way as to let 'us' make up our minds about who was in the Bush lite category.

If I have a choice as to someone who stands with Bush at war, or with Clinton on Medicare, I'll take the later.

By the way, I really like John Kerry, but I like Dean more :)

Edited to add, regarding Wes Clark: praise for Republicans is not my idea of a Democrat, sorry. Who needs Bush lite when you have Bush apologists?

[stickdog]

27. The Neocon Republic can fuck off and die AFAIAC.

But it is sad to see what was once a good publication go the way of the DLC ...

[LuminousX]

31. Face Value

Let's examine this at face value, assuming TNR isn't forcing a political agenda and is truly objective.

First thing I do when looking at something is to check for tone in the adjectives used to make the writing interesting. Here are some examples that I think inappropriately color the events being described:

"repeatedly blasts", "he lashed out", "cheap shot"

It appears they are pushing the 'thin skinned candidate' meme. That's okay, it is part of the narrative that makes Dean interesting to write about. People are waiting for him to lose his temper.

So removing the descriptives, let's examine what they are really grading Dean on.

"Even Wes Clark, who was a Republican until 25 days ago, could not reasonably be compared to Newt Gingrich."

How do we define Republican? We have two possible paths: voter registration or actual votes cast. I am a registered Democrat as of the year 2000. Until then I was an independent who consistently voted for Democratic candidates. Am I any more a Democrat in the year 2000 than the year 1992? As of the year 2003, not only am I registered but I donate money and encourage others to donate money to specific Democratic candidates. Which means more? The vote, the registration, or the fundraising?

Clark admits to voting for Nixon and Reagan. Clark wanted to work for Rove. He may not have been registered, but if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then you are fairly safe in going on the assumption you are dealing with a duck until more evidence comes in.

Dean is even saying, Clark, who was for all intents and purposes a Republican, still cannot be compared to Newt, one of the most despised figures in recent history.

[kang]

32. But another conclusion could easily be made based on the

evidence. You forgot to mention that he voted for Clinton and Gore, and that while he was courted by Republicans to run (I've heard it was for Congress in CA), he has also spoken at Democratic fundraisers as well (if not more...have to check on that one). So why wouldn't that bring you to the similar conclusion that he's a Democrat? Aside from the GOP's surprisingly aggressive smear campaign against him (see Shelton's comments), I haven't heard of Gen. Clark (at least one that the press has caught) lying on his campaign, so why don't we just take him on his word and judge him by his actions?

I understand if people are suspicious of his allegiance/loyalty to the Democratic party and will need to hear more of his ideas and positions, but being an independent in the past is very different than being a Republican. My Dad voted for Reagan, but also Gore...and he certainly doesn't consider himself a Dem or a Republican. I know it's hard for many of us on this forum to understand, but that kind of thing does exist.

[LuminousX]

33. The issue then is

Was Dean's statement really that harsh?

I don't think so. It may be a mischaracterization and it is up to Clark to shut down that line of attack, but it is not an unreasonable assertion from someone running against another, especially when it ends with Dean saying Clark isn't as bad as Newt. No one is as bad as Newt.

[Meshuga]

34. That was a cheap shot at Clark...

Dean who got all crancky claiming that he was being unfairly compared to Newt at the debate is being dishonest by maliciously throwing the "Clark who was a Republican 25 days ago".

Dean either lacks character or he is just plain desperate which is forgivable.

[LuminousX]

36. I'll accept desperate

Sure, Clark is a threat to Dean so Dean needs to handicap him. It must have worked because now Kerry has picked up on this meme.

[kang]

35. Reasonable as a political tactic, but still

dishonest and misleading. This is especially true given the intent behind using the word "Republican" and Gen. Clark's name in the same phrase. To question one's loyalty to the Dem party is one thing (as Leiberman and Kerry have done), but we all know that the term "Republican" has serious baggage associated with it for many Dems. This is in no way as severe, but it is the same strain of tactics (using misleading statements by putting words in the same sentence) that the current administration engaged in w/blurring the lines btw Al Qaeda and Iraq. Again, not at all the same level of dishonesty, but I was struggling for an analogy that would convey why I think it's best that Dems not use such tactics if we are to claim the high ground on political integrity.

As for constructive criticism, Clark should get around to registering as a Democrat (kind of important) ASAP and I believe it would be appropriate for him to cut all ties w/Axiocom (sp?). He needs to understand that a candidate must be above suspicion. This is especially true as the new arrival.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

38. The fear is palpable.

[LuminousX]

39. Regret

I'm sure now that Kerry is dissing Clark for his dubious party ties, people are feeling a bit chagrined about Dean.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

40. Domenici-lite?

Dean had harsh words for what he called the "radical right wing" in Congress, particularly members of the House, and Gingrich's Contract With America.

However, he applauded the efforts of Senate Budget Committee chairman Pete Domemici, R-Nev., who presented his own balanced budget plan last week.
Dean said he disagreed with some of the details of Domenici's plan. But he said Domenici's was a serious proposal that did not include tax cuts and recognized the need to put a permanent end to federal budget deficits.
Dean also said he could defend Domenici's approach to reducing Medicare costs. He said he supported more managed care for Medicare recipients and requiring some Medicare recipients to pay a greater share of the cost of their medical services.
"I fully subscribe to the notion that we should reduce the Medicare growth rate from 10 percent to 7 percent, or less if possible," Dean said.
The Vermont governor has been an outspoken critic of the Contract With America, which he continued to describe Wednesday as the "Contract On America".
http://12.32.36.99/TimesArgus.pdf

so Dean may not have been a 'fan' of Gingrich's, but he did praise the same plan from Domenici (who by the way, is actually from NM) as Gingrich backed.

[ProfessorPlum]

41. I'm surprised

that no one else can hear the sarcasm in that quote. It was a sarcastic remark, not some statement of truth.

Dean is commenting on Clark's frustating (to me at least) coyness at even announcing his party affiliation until recently. But everyone understands why Clark did what he did.

Jeez, it's not as funny when you have to explain it.

[DrFunkenstein]

42. Dean Was Not Frustrated At Clark's Coyness

He was trying to torpedo Clark's maiden voyage. It's not like he didn't pull similar stunts with Graham and Kucinich. Was he being sarcastic when he called himself the only electable anti-war candidate?

[ProfessorPlum]

68. Somehow I think General Clark will survive Dean's comment.

he seems to be made of pretty stern stuff. But it is nice that you are looking out for him :)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

43. So will the Secretary of State have to continually explain to our allies

that Dean was 'just joking' or 'just being sarcastic' and his remarks were not 'some statement of truth'?

After the diplomatic debacle that the Bush administration has been we need a President who can go for a few days without saying something that is "not some statement of truth".

[ProfessorPlum]

69. A true nightmare scenario.

Try reading Dean's statement again like this:

"Even Wes Clark, who was a Republican until 25 days ago for crying out loud, could not reasonably be compared to Newt Gingrich."

[gully]

46. TNR-Calls out Kerry for Intellectual dishonesty.

hmmm, I guess TNR will have to choose between all these smarmy candidates?

http://www.tnr.com/primary/index.mhtml?pid=887
OCTOBER SURPRISES
by Lawrence F. Kaplan

Candidate: John Kerry
Category: Intellectual Honesty
Grade: D

(snip)

"John Kerry is being too coy for his own good. Kerry says that he has it "on the highest authority" that the French and Russians were prepared to reach a compromise with the United States at the United Nations on the eve of the Iraq war. Pressed for details, Kerry refused to divulge his source and would not elaborate on the shape of the supposed compromise. "I'm going to talk about it more publicly at a later time," he averred.

Why a later time? Maybe because, according to just about every known account, there never was a compromise in the works. Recall that French president Jacques Chirac vowed to veto any new U.N. resolution on Iraq "whatever the circumstances." Recall, too, that Russian diplomats said they would "never support" a resolution authorizing war, and that the Germans took exactly the same position. Or, as France's ambassador to Great Britain, Gerard Errera, put it soon after the war commenced, a draft compromise resolution "never had a chance to get a majority of the Security Council with or without the negative vote of France."

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

47. Goose, meet gander....

:freak:

[Feanorcurufinwe]

48. Who do you believe Chirac, or Bush?

INSPECTIONS TIMETABLE

Q. – Would you be ready to propose a tighter timetable for the inspections programme?

THE MINISTER – Absolutely, we said so at the 7 March Security Council meeting. we're ready to work on the basis of a tighter timetable once the inspectors have themselves decided how long they need to complete their inspections. We clearly indicated that in UNSCR 1441. There's an obligatory process. The two-stage process, the two stages of responsible action. To do the utmost to move forward on the inspections route and, if we find ourselves at a dead end, then to face up to our responsibilities. And there's a designated referee: the inspectors. It's for them to report to us. It's on the basis of the inspectors' assessment and reports that the Security Council must appraise the progress which has been made.

Q. – At the outset there was some talk of 120 days. You've talked about 60 days. Are you coming round to the undecided countries' idea of 30 to 45 days?

THE MINISTER – We're in close touch with them. UNSCR 1284 refers to 120 days precisely in order to allow the establishment of the inspectors' work programme. If the inspectors tell us that they can do this work in a shorter time, we're obviously flexible. We want a solution and we're trying to get a consensus on the Security Council.

Q. – You're still hoping for peace?

THE MINISTER – We believe that so long as nothing irrevocable has been done, we must indeed do the utmost to try and move forward and that's what we're doing.

US

Q. – How do you explain this sudden US impatience?

THE MINISTER – I believe that the Americans are determined, they've said so several times. They have a massive military presence on the ground. We think progress can be made through the peaceful disarmament route. Today they say they have doubts. Everyone is responsible for the position they defend.

Q. – Today what way out of the crisis can be found to save the international community's unity?

THE MINISTER – I believe that the way out of the crisis is to try both to define a credible programme for the inspectors' work and a time-frame which allows us swiftly to press on and complete the inspections. I believe that this is genuinely what most, not to say a very large majority of the Security Council members want.
http://www.france.diplomatie.fr/actu/bulletin.gb.asp?liste=20030314.gb.html

So Bush says the French were inflexible. They say they just wanted a peaceful solution. If you want to believe Bush, I guess that is your choice.

[gully]

49. I guess you'll have to take that up with TNR?

;)

[Feanorcurufinwe]

50. No, I'm taking it up with you: who do you believe Bush or Chirac?

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

51. Chirac, Schroeder and Putin...

Jacques Chirac vowed to veto any new U.N. resolution on Iraq "whatever the circumstances." Recall, too, that Russian diplomats said they would "never support" a resolution authorizing war, and that the Germans took exactly the same position.


That's how I remember it, too. This was "show their cards time" for Chimp. Kerry appears to be the only one that believes otherwise. :shrug: Go figure.



On edit: It's probably OK to reveal the source now. Or is it not "later enough" of a date?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

52. So you are totally accepting the Bush version of events.

OK. That's is your decision to make.

[polpilot]

53. Dean wins..others lose...in War of the Words..............................

Dean '04...The New Democratic leader of The NEW Democratic party

[Feanorcurufinwe]

55. Empty slogans?

[SahaleArm]

56. At what point do we consider this to be idol worship?

The 'C' word may start getting tossed around:).

[polpilot]

58. Toss it. Don't be shy. It's life.

Dean '04

[Name removed]

59. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

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

[Feanorcurufinwe]

61. Why did you support the 9/11 attacks?

[polpilot]

62. Makes as much sense as usual!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

63. They may have made sense to you and Dr. Dean but not to the rest of us.

[thentro]

64. of all the things dean has said, this irks me

I like Howard Dean. I think he is a good man who speaks to the point and should be a leader in America for sure. But things like this turn me off to him in a big way. It shows that he either a) does not do his reading into who other candidates are and instead uses headlines or b) likes to pick up on headlines to smear other Dems.
His anger against bush is a great needed drink in the democratic party, but if that is his only weapon he-will-fail.
so
I support Clark, because in doing an obsessive amount of reading, I have found him decidedly liberal, and used to working in a conservative environment. Sound like some one we need? His position on the war in Iraq is wonderfully clear and beautifully complex. You just need to do some reading people! I find it ironic that the attacks on Clark usually originate at newsmax.com (conservative) and find their way to the left. Interesting huh?
I hope this all makes sense, if you cant tell I am still running over ideas in my head (Like Wesley Clark does :D)
thanks

[jeter]

65. Well Dean is doing better.

He was rated an F last time.

[pezcore64]

66. well...

Bill Oreilly claimed he didnt know he was registered a republican and that he was Independent. so, the way i see it, it must be easy to lie about party affiliation so long as its in the past...tho i must admit i dun see how someone didnt know what they were registered as.