Thoughts on Hillary and why our Dems sounding hawkish on Iran.

[madfloridian]

Well, ok, and big houses if you want to go there.

First off, I think any issues about Hillary, are, if people are honest...not so much about her as about the "inevitability" of her machine. Frankly I like her just fine.

I don't like knowing that she is almost invincible. I would not like that about anyone, so it is not personal about her.

Second...every one of our candidates is being hawkish on Iran. Even Howard Dean, not a candidate, is being hawkish on Iran. Edwards is, Hillary is. I know others are. I don't have their exact statements.

I don't like it myself, but that is what they are doing. I do think Iran is much more of a threat now than it ever was before. Little Boots has made it that way. He has threatened them just like he did Iraq.

We made them a worse threat than they were before, and I think our Democrats have to be very careful. I DON'T think they need to be so careful about Iraq, though. I think they need to get tough on getting out of there.

I don't care if Edwards lives in a big house. I did not care if Kerry lived in a big house. I just don't care. You can't really run for president to win if you are not wealthy...you just can't.

I think the griping about "hating Hillary" is pretty exaggerated. I think the stuff about Edwards' house is way out of line. I do find myself wishing they did not have to sound so tough on Iran, but I understand that they probably should.

[ShortnFiery]

1. "Second...every one of our candidates is being hawkish on Iran."

WHY?!? Are they personally invested in the Military Industrial Machine. Does anyone here honestly believe that Iran, even it is seeking nuclear weapons, wants to bomb US instead of using it as a deterrent?

Our Democratic Representatives need to call for detente not WAR! I'm taking notes and will give money to all their primary challengers. :grr:

If OUR Representative continue to promote WAR on IRAN, then we should let them know that their re-election is NOT a given. :grr:

NO MORE HEGEMONY YOU ARROGANT LEGISLATORS!

I'm sickened by all this asinine machismo. :puke:

[mazzarro]

2. I do second that -- n/t

[madfloridian]

4. They don't seem to be calling for war...I have not seen that.

They are just saying it is a threat, more of one now than before.

Hey, what can I say? Sounds like an organized party with talking points to me.

I guess there won't be anyone to vote for.

[ShortnFiery]

16. They're not even a threat, they're the kid who graduated last in nuclear physics.

Unbiased experts say that they are YEARS (like 4 or 5) away from harnessing it for ENERGY much less developing a nuclear bomb.

I'm sickened by Our Representatives who are basically, IMO, pandering to AIPAC. :thumbsdown:

What many people don't understand that even if we are successful in keeping the sunnis intact within Iraq. There will always be unstable Pakistan and The Saudis who indirectly support Palestine.

So it's all a RACKET to keep those manufactured bombs in use. They ain't gonna explode themselves you know? :puke:

[Kagemusha]

5. Because a more powerful Iran is a greater threat to Israel.

It's a simple answer. It is not an answer which particularly bothers me; I carry no water for Iran. But that little Iraq problem becomes a bigger problem once Iran is militarily engaged, and knowing this, Iran is deepening its hooks into Iraq as a defensive strategy. This is not good for us.

[John Q. Citizen]

8. We can't stand democracy. Iraqs leadership is close to Iran. They were elected

by the majority shia. Iran is shia, so it's nomal that they should have close ties.

We made Iran stronger by taking out Saddam. They served as a counter balance to each other.


I guess as we sow we reap.

So we can behave as a Empire and kill everybody who disagrees with our empire, or we can go home and have healthcare for all. We can't do both.

[Kagemusha]

9. Not disagreeing at all.

The latest news about Iran working its butt off to support Iraq with reconstruction, helping out in the security field.... there must be some exploding heads in Washington this morning.

[ShortnFiery]

10. That makes us even ...

because I carry no water for EITHER Nation. In fact, Israel is as big of threat as Iran with regard to the chances of going off half-cocked.

Why do you seeming *hate* Iran? Because our legislators tell us so?

The guy who is deemed President is truly a "figurehead" not, like King George, "The Unitary Executive."

Can't you see that our legislators are whipping us up into a frenzy ALL FOR NOTHING.

If we get all militaristic about Iran, we will kill so many innocents.

IRAN IS NOT AN IMMINENT THREAT! - We should be talking with Iran. Talking, not threatening another nation who is YEARS (by most sane organizations - 5 years!) away from nuclear power much less devoping a bomb. We are being PUNKED and not all of the Evil Characters are republicans. :(

We have much more important issues to deal with other thank keeping the war machine tuned up. :grr:

You want to talk about an unstable government and a true THREAT, take a real close look at what's going on in Pakistan. And yes, they have NUKES. :scared:

On Edit: We are not helping Israel in the long run. Look at the disgustingly harsh practices of Saudi Arabia? If it's not Shia, then it's Sunni after Israel.

I think Israel needs to put down the club and TALK instead of bully the Palestinians. What they've been doing (collective punishment) for decades is NOT WORKING. Yet we want to follow their lead? We must be suicidal.

[Kagemusha]

15. Sorry for the wasted trouble but, I have not the slightest hate towards Iran.

Not even the tiniest bit. I'm a frequent critic of Israel, and I see Iran as an imminent threat only if it is imminently attacked, in which case US and British troops in Iraq are not in the best strategic and tactical positions.

But this does not mean I, a Westerner, am under the illusion that the long-term interests of Iran and myself, coincide whatsoever. Iran probably benefits a lot from $70 a barrel oil prices. I do not. What irks me is not treating Iran as if it is another country with separate interests. What irks me is foolish tactics and strategy that do more harm than good. And I think very little of Israel's trying to goad the US into action against Iran. But that's because I think it's counterproductive. If it was all going to actually work I wouldn't be so quick to criticize.

Sorry you wasted trouble on me. I'm sure you can find lots of people who really do hate Iran, purely because it is a strategic compeditor to Israel, and its threat or lack thereof to the US, be damned.

[ShortnFiery]

17. My apology, I misinterpreted your response.

I'm just getting so tired of people beating their chests (+ the war drums) and talking tough.

We really need to tone down the rhetoric. I'm so ashamed of our Executive Branch.

Thanks for the clarification. :hi:

[RegimeChange2008]

22. The biggest threat to Israel is their own Likud fascists.

What has happened to Israel since the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin is very similar to what has happened in the US since JFK was murdered. Both murders were set up to look like the act of a lone nut, but in both cases, it was the radical right wing/military industrial complex types responsible. It's no coincidence that Israel (while certainly never a tranquil paradise) has become increasingly more violent since the Netan-Yahoo Likudists have taken over. And don't bother with the "Kadima" ruse - it's stealth Likud just as much as the DLC are stealth Republican.

It's time to let these idiots deal with their own Phantom Menaces and hope the Israeli people wise up and throw them the fuck out of office.

[IsItJustMe]

52. I also find this a disturbing pattern. I'ts not thinking outside the box and we will get more of

same war mentality. FACT!!!

[Contrite]

3. Kucinich is the only one making any sense

I'm thinking I'll support him:


(Quote)

"Now, U.S. support for insurgent activity in Iran would not be tolerable. The administration has claimed numerous times that the object of the so-called war on terrorism is to target lawless insurgent groups. It would be a breach of trust if the administration is involved in this. Iran does not present an imminent threat. Any setting the stage for an attack on Iran is setting the stage for a unilateral act of war.

"I think that this country needs to move very slowly anytime we are setting the stage for conflict with another nation. Don't we have enough problems in Iraq to clean up without setting the stage for another conflict in Iran? We must use diplomacy. We must use our relationships with Russia and China and other nations in order to avert a conflict with Iran."

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Not the only one.

I recorded General Clark making these comments while he was campaigning for Democrats in New Hampshire in October:


"We're being set up again, just like we were with Iraq, and what I've found in my life is, generally that if you want a war, you can have one.

Most people are about equally brave, most people will fight. Most people love their families, they love their homes, they believe that whatever they believe in is the single one way to truth, reconciliation and the after life, and most people will fight for it. Most people are not philosophical about it, and whether you're walking into a bar in New York City after the Red Sox have played the Yankees, or whether you're dealing with the Bosnians and the Serbs, or whether you're talking about Christians and Iranians.

People will fight for what they believe in. So if we want a war with a billion Muslims, we can probably have one. I don't think we want one, we certainly don't need one, and we should do everything we can to prevent it."


On that same weekend I also recorded Wes Clark making these comments regarding pending war with Iran. I note that he made these comments BEFORE Democrats retook Congress in November, which Clark was then passionately arguing that we had to do everything in our power to make happen. The threat Clark describes suffered a set back with a Democratic victory, but by no means has it been eliminated. Again, this is transcribed from my own recording:


"I think that we're in a very dangerous position because not only is the clock ticking in North Korea, but the clock is ticking in Iran. The President has basically lined up his statements so that he can not live with the possibility of an Iranian nuclear weapon, and he has made a half hearted effort at diplomacy. We're not talking with Iran directly. He's made a half hearted effort at diplomacy, I believe, so that diplomacy will fail. And then, his plan is, sometime in the Spring of 2007, which is not so far away, he's going to come on Television, he's going to say:

'My fellow Americans. For 5 years we've watched the evil empire of Iran struggle to prepare nuclear weapons. Although our intelligence is not perfect, we have enough information to assure us that they're making progress.

As I told, and promised you, we will not allow the worst weapons to fall into the hands of the worst people. Iran is a state that supports Terrorists. For the good of humanity they can not be permitted to have nuclear weapons. We've asked our Allies to help, we've gone to the United Nations, we've asked the Iranians to forbear, nothing has worked. There is no option remaining, but to use America's military superiority to address this growing and gathering threat.

As I speak to you tonight, the first bombers are over Tehran. We will not falter, we will not fail, we will not be denied, and America will prevent Iran from having nuclear weapons.

Thank You my fellow Americans'


More recently, following Bush's State of the Union Address, Wes Clark had this response to a FOX news jock:

Alan Colmes: He had some really strong rhetoric tonight about Iran, about the threat from Iran, about terrorists working with Iran. Do you think he is preparing the country for a possible military action toward that country?

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Yes, I do. I think that the…the…the statements about Iran continue to ratchet up the pressure and uh, lay the groundwork for taking action.

Sean Hannity: General Clark

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK:: And I think it’s very dangerous.

Link for video and transcript of Clark's entire appearance:
http://securingamerica.com/node/2163

I have lots of other links to transcripts of Clark talking very sensibly about Iran, directly countering those who are rushing us to war there. This though was something I was able to post quickly from an entry I made on another thread today. I gotta hit the sack now. Maybe I'll add more tomorrow.

[Contrite]

18. Thank you, Tom.

Looking forward to other statements you can find.

[CarolNYC]

26. Here's what he said in Nevada this weekend....

where he spoke at the Douglas County Democratic Central Committee’s 3rd Annual “Turn Nevada Blue Dinner":

Clark said in an interview that he opposes the Bush administration’s proposed escalation of troops in Iraq, and also is concerned about a possible military foray into Iran.

‘‘It’s amazing to me that the president doesn’t think he has enough leverage yet to deal with the Iranians,’’ Clark said, adding that he fears ‘‘a buildup to a strike on Iran — and I don’t believe we should ever go to war with a country unless it’s the absolutely, absolutely, absolutely last resort.’’

‘‘When you want to initiate combat operations, when you won’t deign to speak to the country, what in the world is the matter with this leadership?’’

http://www.sparkstribune.net/720.shtml

It's good to see that at least a couple of the possibilities for '08 don't feel the burning need to sound hawkish on Iran....

Someone has to stop the madness before it's too late. I've seen Clark, at numerous campaign events during the spring and summer practically begging those in attendance to make an issue out of the possible runup to a military confrontation with Iran by making noise now, before it's too late to stop it. He has been really really concerned about this for a while now.

Go Dennis! Go Wes! Thanks for some sanity in an insane world.

[Ammonium]

23. Kucinich is the fucking man

It's high time to end this 16 years of buch/clinton monarchy.

[John Q. Citizen]

6. The talk about people hating Hillary reminds me of the talk about

people hating bush.

It's a political ploy to stop critism for bad policies.

[jobycom]

14. Reminds me more of all the people who used to hate Gore.

Gore was hated around here by many. He was a DLC sellout, he lost an election, he took too much corporate money, his policies were too conservative... The moment he dropped out, the very same posters, and I mean the same ones, who had called him DLC began saying he was a victim of the DLC.

The Hillary Haters are out of line. They are dead wrong. You ask most of them why they hate Hillary, and they give vague answers about the IWR, or supporting Bush, or not fighting corporations, or censoring video games, or trying to ban flag burning, or something else that they get completely wrong. They are not informed, they are just bashing.

Those who tried to defend Bush be attacking "Bush bashers" were professional spinners employing sophisticated advertising techniques to promote Bush's presidency. Those who are defending Hillary are grassroots Democrats, some of whom may not even support her in the primaries, who are sick and God Damned tired of watching so-called Democrats shred our candidates so that the Republicans don't have to. Or worse, of Republican operatives hitting liberal boards to spread disinfo to trash her, so that some Dems think that well-meaning liberals are really behind the complaints against her.

IN other words, defending Hillary-bashing by comparing those defending Hillary to those defending Bush is just a political ploy to defend Dems doing the work of the Republicans for them.

[John Q. Citizen]

21. Gore has changed. His policies have changed. So I don't find it surprising

that people who disliked some of his policies before now find him to be a candidate they can support.

Hillary has a pretty good voting record on many liberal issues, but I can also find a lot of her policies and actions that I don't agree with.

I don't hate bush, I just hate 100% of his policies. I think he's been very bad for the country.

What bothers me is, when I criticize Hillary, I get called a Hillary hater. And I don't hate her. But it has the effect of switching the conversation from critizing policies or actions that I might disagree strongly with to calling me a name that's untrue.

The same has happened on other sites when I've critizized bush's policies.

[jobycom]

24. No he hasn't, not one bit. Only the amount of brainwashing has changed.

Gore is the same man he was as VP. The only thing that changed was when he dropped out, the Republicans quit smearing him, so people saw him for who he is. If Hillary drops out, same thing will happen to her. She will become the victim of the DLC, etc, etc, etc. A lot of people don't realize just how much they have drunk the Koolaid (no one does, that's why they drink it), or rather, how much their opinions have been shaped by spin and swiftboating, rather than by facts.

As for criticizing Hillary, depends on how you do it, on whether you will be called a hater or not. Those who say "Hillary is conservative, she supported the war, she supports flag-burning bans, etc," should be attacked, for not understanding what they are saying. Those who say "Hillary isn't my choice because she voted for the IWR, which shows that she was too easily fooled into trusting Bush when she shouldn't have," and then back that up by supporting a candidate who didn't support Bush back then, have a valid point, as long as they rule out Edwards, Kerry, Biden, and Clark (who encouraged support of the IWR in almost exactly the words used by Hillary in her floor speech on the IWR--even if Clarkies are in denial about that), but it is a valid argument--as long as the person doesn't say "She voted for the war!"

What I'm saying is that you can oppose Hillary on facts and not be a Hillary basher. I've just seen very few people who do that. Most people who attack her around her spout out the swiftboat points, and don't know the facts. Those are the bashers, and need to be criticized, even shamed into realizing they don't know the facts. A factual opposition to Hillary is good (I've got some issues with her, and still have no idea who I will support). A myth-driven swiftboat opposition to her is bad. That's my point.

[John Q. Citizen]

27. Yes, Gore has changed his policies. Single payer health insurance is a case

in point. Gore never called for that in 2000. He endorses it now. That is a major change. Gore also backed Dean in the 2004 primaries, and as such, publicly and specifically separated himself from the failed policies of the DLC. So that was a sea change.

"Koolaid" aside, those two facts haven't appeared enter into your fact set.

I listened to Hillary on C-span on Saturday, and one of the first things she did was blatantly lie to the crowd. She said, "Americans are the hardest working people in the world." That's a bunch of crap. I know it, you know it, and Hillary knows it. It was pandering, it was a completely unnecessary little lie. I'm tired of being lied to by our leaders, whatever letter follows there names. We had a Union movement where people died to make sure we aren't the hardest working people on earth, ie, the 40 hour work week, regular scheduled breaks, child labor laws. I don't want to be the hardest working people on earth but Hillary seems to believe that is a virtue instead of a crime against working people.

Hillary continues to vote to fund her mistake, ie, the war vote. She said her vote was a mistake. She says she takes responsibility for her mistake so why does she vote to perpetuate her mistake? That's hypocrisy. I'm tired of hypocritical leaders. Also, Hillary joined in with the Republicans on the continual swift boating of John Kerry. She publicly chastised Kerry with the Republicans, and she knew better. Yet when her buddy James Carville unleashed unfounded attacks against Howard Dean, there wasn't any kind of reprimand for his lies from Hillary to be found. This is more hypocrisy.

So you can support who you want and I can support who I want. I don't call you a basher, so please don't call me a basher. I don't call you a hater, so please don't call me a hater.

Thank you.

[jobycom]

45. I'll call you a basher if I think you're a basher.

You prove it in the post where you tell me not to. Calling Hillary's cheerleading comment "Americans are the hardest working people in the world" a lie is ridiculous. You won't be able to find a candidate who hasn't said that.

Second, she didn't vote for the war, she voted for a resolution requiring Bush to attempt diplomtic solutions to an issue he had already said he would invade over. She put limits on Bush's claim to unbridled power. It turned out bad, but it would have turned out just as bad if she had voted no.

Spreading false stories and calling a candidate a liar because you don't like something she said--something which everyone knows is an unmeasurable opinion anyway--is bashing.

I haven't decided who I'm going to support. But I'm sick of the baseless, factless bashing of Democrats, and I question the integrity of anyone doing it. Deal with it.

Thank you.

[John Q. Citizen]

47. Hillary came out pandering. She insulted everyones intelligence with that remark.

In her opinion, Americans are the hardest working people in the world? Her opinion is based on.....?????

Her judgement is screwy. I can name lots of country's where people work much harder just for subsistence. I bet you can too.

This isn't a baseless charge, it's based on her obviously sheltered and nationalistic view. When bush spews crap like that it makes me feel exactly the same way. It's pandering.

I question the integrity of any politician doing it. It's sooo yucky.

As for Hillary's self admited mistake, if it'
No thank you.

[jobycom]

46. And on Gore...

Gore was always a champion of more affordable health care. The situation in 2000 was different, his solution was different. That's not a sign that he's changed, just that he sees different possibilities now. As for Dean, he thought Dean was the best candidate, so he endorsed him. If he had wanted to simply bash the DLC, he'd have done that instead.

[John Q. Citizen]

48. Everyone is in favor of affordable healthcare. Gore has changed his policy stance

so that it can happen.

If Hillary came out for single payer health insurence I would seriously consider her in the primaries. She's still into "Let's let the insurence companies make obscene profits," but I'm still for affordable healthcare. That's a joke, a bad joke.

As for Dean, Dean was the only candidate squarely, openly and resolutely against the war. Have't you heard? He was the anti-war candidate. Which was one of the major reasons Gore backed him. You talk a lot about being honest in our expressions about candidates. Well put up or.....

[Straight Shooter]

7. They can stand firm about Iran being responsible about its nuclear uses.

I have no problem with that. What I dislike is the chest-beating rhetoric that I'm hearing, or at least it sounds that way to me.

What I'm not hearing from these candidates is the information which is clearly disputing that Iran is a threat. What I'm not hearing from these candidates is that the bush administration is goading Iran into a confrontation. There seem to be a lack of cooler heads prevailing.

Any link to Howard Dean discussing Iran would be greatly appreciated, madfloridian. I trust him more than any other politician.

[Contrite]

11. Kucinich says Iran is not an imminent threat

http://www.kucinichforcongress.us/floor_speeches/iran_not_threat28sep.php

Iran Is Not an Imminent Threat

Dennis Kucinich speaking from the Floor of the House

Link to this entry in the Congressional Record
Sep 28, 2006

Speaking in opposition to H.R. 6198, the Iran Freedom Support Act, Congressman Kucinich said:

"Mr. Speaker, it is important to go back a little bit in history here. The Iraq Accountability Act of 1998 was about funding a media propaganda machine which was, unfortunately, used to lay the groundwork for a war against Iraq. That act was about encouraging and funding opposition inside Iraq, unfortunately, to destabilize Iraq prior to a war.

"You could call this bill the 'Iran Accountability Act.' This act funds media propaganda machines to lay the groundwork for a war against Iran. It encourages and funds opposition inside Iran for that same purpose.

"Notwithstanding what the words are in this bill, we have been here before. This Administration is trying to create an international crisis by inflating Iran's nuclear development into an Iraq-type WMD hoax. 'Iran is not an imminent threat'; this, from Dr. Hans Blitz, former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector, speaking to our congressional oversight subcommittee the other day.

"The International Atomic Energy Agency points out that Iran has an enrichment level of about 3.6%. You have to go to 90% to have weapons-quality enrichment. Iran is not an imminent threat. Iran does not have nuclear weapons.

"This is a time for us to engage Iran with direct talks, our President to their President. This is the time to give assurance to Iran that we are not going to attack them.

"Unfortunately, this Administration has chosen to conduct covert ops in Iran. This Administration has chosen to select 1,500 bombing targets with the Strategic Air Command. This Administration has chosen plans for a naval blockade of the Strait of Hormuz. This Administration looked the other way when a congressional staff report basically claimed that Iran was trying to engage in nuclear escalation.

"We don't need war, we need to talk, and that is what we ought to stand for here. No more Iraqs."

[Straight Shooter]

25. I'm sorry, I wasn't clear. I was referring to presidential candidates.

Is Kucinich in the race again? I haven't heard. I know he was at the 1-27-07 March, but unfortunately Jane Fonda sucked just about all the media oxygen out of the room and he didn't get much coverage. Neither did Conyers. What coverage they got was taken out of context. No surprise, there.

Kucinich always makes the most sense when it comes to the issue of negotiation and diplomacy versus chest-beating and rhetoric, but his voice is drowned out by the thundering herd of panderers.

[Contrite]

50. Hell yes he's running again--announced on 12/12/06

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20061212/D8LVG7UO0.html

[sandnsea]

13. I don't like Hillary, the house is not fine

Not because they have a lot of money, not because I care whether they even help the poor. It's because we're at war over fucking OIL and people on this board cannot make the goddamn connection between consumption and dwindling resources and the goddamn war and environment they say they care about. Which is pretty much the same thing about Hillary and her machine, that will make damn sure none of this is on the agenda because she doesn't want to debate real issues anyway.

Hillary is okay. After all her and Bill have done. It's the goddamned twilight zone.

[ShortnFiery]

19. "It's the goddamned twilight zone."

IMO, and with respect, it's just the FILTHY trenches of politics - inside and out of the Party, it's figuratively cut throat. :shrug:

[RegimeChange2008]

20. Absolutely NO TOLERANCE for the insane, genocidal, imperialist, fascist foreign policy

Not from Hillary. Not from Edwards. Not from Pelosi & Reid and the rest of Congress. Not from Chimp and Cheney. It's time to end this shit NOW.

[wyldwolf]

28. Did you have an issue about the "inevitability" of Howard Dean's campaign?

I don't recall that you did.

[madfloridian]

29. TPTB took care of that "inevitability". With precision strikes.

If the hawks of our party had been as precise in their strikes against terrorists, we would never have been a war.

May I quote? Thank you...from his own party. From a group within the party that is NOT legally supposed to advocate for or against candidates. They are a 501, not a PAC. They called a press conference in 2003.

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/336

More than 50 centrist Democrats, including Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, met here yesterday to plot strategy for the "New Democrat" movement. To help get the ball rolling they read a memo by Al From and Bruce Reed, the chairman and president of the Democratic Leadership Council. The memo dismissed Dean as an elitist liberal from the "McGovern-Mondale wing" of the party -- "the wing that lost 49 states in two elections, and transformed Democrats from a strong national party into a much weaker regional one."

"It is a shame that the DLC is trying to divide the party along these lines," said Dean spokesman Joe Trippi. "Governor Dean's record as a centrist on health care and balancing the budget speaks for itself."

As founder of the DLC, From has been pushing the Democratic Party to the right for nearly 20 years. He was in tall cotton, philosophically speaking, when an early leader of the DLC, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992. As Clinton's domestic policy guru, Reed pushed New Democrat ideas -- such as welfare reform -- that were often unpopular with party liberals.

"We are increasingly confident that President Bush can be beaten next year, but Dean is not the man to do it," Reed and From wrote. "Most Democrats aren't elitists who think they know better than everyone else."

And then came the Osama ad by David Jones group made up of folks from all campaigns....the group he said on C-Span was formed specifically to bring Dean down.

And he was done.

Now there is real inevitability. Not the kind in which 3 magazine covers deemed Dean crazy, the real inevitability.

[wyldwolf]

30. OK, but did you have an issue about the "inevitability" of Howard Dean's campaign?

[madfloridian]

31. Do you think what the DLC did against Dean was legal or honest?

Do you?

[wyldwolf]

32. Did you have an issue about the "inevitability" of Howard Dean's campaign?

Are you having problems with the question?

[madfloridian]

33. Are you evading the question about what the DLC did..calling a press conference

to attack Dean when they are not a group that is allowed to do that?

[wyldwolf]

34. the only person evading a question around here is you.

Did you have an issue about the "inevitability" of Howard Dean's campaign?

[madfloridian]

35. How the DLC defines itself....a 501. They shouldn't have held a press conference.

to attack a specific candidate.

DLC Quick Facts:

Organization: The DLC is a nonprofit corporation exempt from tax under Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code. It is not a political committee and is not organized to influence elections.

Mission: The DLC's mission is to promote public debate within the Democratic Party and the public at large about national and international policy and political issues. Specifically, as the founding organization of the New Democrat movement, the DLC's goal is to modernize the progressive tradition in American politics for the 21st Century by advancing a set of innovative ideas for governing through a national network of elected officials and community leaders."


http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?kaid=86&subid=85&contentid=893

[wyldwolf]

36. MF, post 28! Why do you continue to evade the question. A simple yes or no!

[madfloridian]

37. Was it legal for the DLC to hold a press conference to call Dean unfit?

Just a simple question.

[wyldwolf]

38. LOL! I can't wait to post this up on my blog: How the left evades a question

[madfloridian]

39. Are you going to post about what the DLC did also? Or just make fun of me...

like you usually do.

Those who support the DLC thrive on personal attacks. That is what they did again us in 2003....first time I was ever called "fringe." That's laughable.

So you go and write about the left evades a silly question. And I think I will write a more specific post about that press conference.

Attack, attack, humiliate, humiliate. That is all some guys know how to do.

The DLC is a 501, they held a conference to condemn a candidate.

[wyldwolf]

40. LOL! Can you NOT answer the question? It really is a simple one.

[madfloridian]

41. When you get your post up about me....

I will link it to a couple of blogs I know so they can see how stupid I am.

[wyldwolf]

42. OK, I'll answer it for you since you just can't seem to answer it

I asked you multiple times, "Did you have an issue about the "inevitability" of Howard Dean's campaign?"

After numerous exchanges, you can't seem to answer it. So I'll answer it for you.

No. You had not problem with that, because it was St. Dean.

[madfloridian]

43. Get your post up about me, WW. I will be sure it gets shared around.

And I will work on finding more about that press conference.

[wyldwolf]

44. ok. : )

[mzmolly]

49. I think they are being hawkish, but our hawkish and their hawkish differ greatly.

Their version of hawkish = attack first, make some cash and manipulate the truth. Ours is use force only to defend the nation, and only as a last resort.

I agree, the tough talk on Iran is nauseating. But, given what was said when we didn't want Bush to go after Iraq "Iran is much more of a threat" we are kind of boxed in a bit?

[IndianaGreen]

51. The only ones hawkish on Iran are the neocons and those bought off by the Israel Lobby

The same evil twins that sold us the war in Iraq are at it again!