Clark's right:resistence not run by pathetic ex dictator hiding in a hole

[robbedvoter]

"The entire resistance in Iraq was not run by a pathetic ex-dictator hiding in a hole," the retired general told a foreign-policy crowd in The Hague this week. His solution in Iraq is no different from his rivals: getting help from American allies. But his pitch is all the more compelling because of his experience in Kosovo.
"We won the war, in no small measure because Belgrade could not break the will of 19 democracies united in common cause," Clark said. "I believe alliances are indispensable, not inconvenient," he continued. "I would rather have capable European forces with a say in making decisions, than to have Tonga and the Marshall Islands with no strings attached."
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3762367/

http://clark04.com/speeches/020/
Once again, *D gets the sole coverage for things other said better/before.
(such as "the only anti-war candidate" the only one dealing with race issues" etc.
I guess it's onlt fair, since *D wrote bits of his speech all by himself - as his followers beamed with pride yesterday:

Hussein remark Dean's idea
After national security specialists drafted the outlines of his first major foreign policy speech and former vice president Al Gore weighed in with his thoughts, Howard Dean decided to personally add one more line to the text in light of Sunday's big news.

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/dean/articles/2003/12/18/hussein_remark_deans_idea/

[CMT]

1. silly, silly, silly

No one said he wrote that speech by himself as has been reported in the press and on DU he wrote the line about "The United States not being more secure" due to the capture of Saddam. I'm glad that *C seems to reconginze this as well.

[maddezmom]

2. I'm still not convinced Saddam was hiding in that hole

me thinks: US had him long before, so he certainly wasn't running any sort of resistance.

[robbedvoter]

11. Imitation is the most sincere form of flatery. As the one who started *D,

I thank you! ;-)

[maddezmom]

13. must have erred in your reply, because I don't use the * when referring

for Dean, only use for bush*

[JustJoe]

3. Moratorium on *D & *C, etc.?

Is there any useful point to such barbs?

On the issue itself, the significance of Saddam's
capture, Clark and Dean agree. It means zilch.

[robbedvoter]

4. It was retaliation to TWO threads on how *D is THE ONLY ONE

who holds the truth on this. I have no intention to allow him to steal the spotlight, ideas, thunder the way he did from the other candidates throughout the campaign (i.e - Kuchinich, Kerry).
So, be forewarned - we are a large movement and we will follow you and correct the record everywhere you try to set yourself up as "the only candidate who" this or that. (Not on your blog though - I never go there)

[JustJoe]

5. My blog? You never go there

because I don't have a blog.
You're real wound up though, so carry on.
I'm sure you'll persuade a lot of readers,
of what I don't know.

[robbedvoter]

9. Your candidate's blog. I don't troll there, unlike many of your guys

who are trying hard to disrupt our blog. That's what I meant. I'll bring up the truth elsewhere.

[Myra]

18. Yes. Yes there is a point in these debates. We're in an election.

eom

[JustJoe]

19. Do you know the difference between a "barb" and a "debate"?

The post you responded to, apparently before reading,
referred to the barbs hidden in the war of the asterisks.
The word "debate" was not mentioned.

[sandnsea]

6. I think you're mistaken

Reposting:

They're all saying the same thing, except Howard. He's the only one that says it doesn't matter one way or the other whether Saddam was captured. Clark isn't saying that, if you read the rest of his statement.

"Capturing Saddam increases our chances for success. If we succeed in Iraq, America will be safer. If we fail in Iraq, our enemies will be emboldened."
http://clark04.com/speeches/021/

Kerry's statement:

"Let’s be clear: Our problems in Iraq have not been caused by one man – and simply capturing Saddam Hussein does not finally and fully clear the path to a peaceful and democratic outcome. This is a moment of opportunity, a turning point when the Administration can and should face the realities of how you gain international support in this effort. We cannot expect other nations to join us now if the Administration prohibits them from sharing the reconstruction because they opposed us previously. That not only defies common sense – it’s childish retribution which puts our troops at greater risk. It’s time we leave no doubt what we believe: Iraq belongs to the Iraqi people, not Halliburton and Bechtel."
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2003_1216.html

[pinkpops]

8. dean has guts, doesn't mince words

no doubt about it. I think it matters that Saddam's location is known, in that now the concocted reasons for being there, first "WMD" and second "he's a bad guy and the world is safer" are now satisfied so we can get the hell out. Reason #3 seems to be we are there and we can't just leave because...

[robbedvoter]

10. I want in my candidate both guts and brains. That's why I picked Clark

I also have a different notion about guts. Screaming stuff with the press mostly covering for you doesn't quite cut it.

[SahaleArm]

12. What - Don't like empty rhetoric?

:evilgrin:

[pinkpops]

15. I've been going to Clark meetups

and have given money to Clark but not to Dean. I like them both.

[izzie]

7. I should not get into this.......

First of all. Did we win the war? What type of war is it after you have fought them once and then spent 12 years pushing them into the dark ages THEN sending in the most powerful army in the world. It was easy as we just walked all over them and they ran. Now is more work than then as they are fighting from the back ground.I mean Poland fought on horse back against Hitler harded then these people fought us.We can not seem to win in that other country that really had the terrorists.Lets face it "The War of the Bushies" is a dead thing in this day and age. We have to start to think.

[pinkpops]

14. I read something along this line of thought last night

from George Soros, article in Atlantic,, excerpted from his book
"The Bubble of American Supremacy "

George is, I believe, the billionaire who is pouring $$$ into defeating Bush.

Excerpt from the excerpt:

The supremacist ideology of the Bush Administration stands in opposition to the principles of an open society, which recognize that people have different views and that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth. The supremacist ideology postulates that just because we are stronger than others, we know better and have right on our side

goes on to say

A recent Council on Foreign Relations publication sketches out three alternative national-security strategies. The first calls for the pursuit of American supremacy through the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive military action. It is advocated by neoconservatives. The second seeks the continuation of our earlier policy of deterrence and containment. It is advocated by Colin Powell and other moderates, who may be associated with either political party. The third would have the United States lead a cooperative effort to improve the world by engaging in preventive actions of a constructive character. It is not advocated by any group of significance, although President Bush pays lip service to it. That is the policy I stand for.

here's where I found it:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5273.htm

[izzie]

16. I guess I will have to read that. You know I started feeling this way....

many years ago and when the Brits. went into those Islands I figured the armies of the west were done. A great power like GB doing such a thing.We seems to be beating a dead horse. Times do not call for these land armies any more and we should be ashamed of how we are pushing every one around. It will all come back. Every thing you do has a results.Change is here facing us and we need a leader that sees this, not some that think the world is flat.I mean look the Iraq army did not even put up one plane. Our people knew it was a cake walk and their error was thinking people liked to be ruled by a powerful country. These people did not like it wharn the Brits were their. Also we had backed Saddam.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. For the record

I am opposed to the growing practice of using an asterick (*) instead of a Democratic Party candidates full name. I know there is an editorial message involved, but I would rather that we spelled out that point if indeed it is one we want to make. Back hand slaps are best reserved for use against Republicans.