"I was deceived"

And David Kay has set himself up as an apologist for Bush* indicating that the intelligence services did him bad...if you believe that, let's talk about a bridge in Brooklyn, we ALL KNEW when Bush was elected that he would look for ANY reason to go to war with Iraq. "Luck" was on his side with 9/11.

Now, Kerry, Edwards (not Lieberman who still believes) are banking on the I was deceived argument to criticize Bush* and justify their IWR vote. I could never support them just as I could never support Bush*. It was a big old lie and they all knew it. They just didn't figure the people would catch on, and they allowed themselves to be intimidated by Cheney's "patriot" gambit.

I can only support Clark (first) who actually testified before Congress that war was not necessary and Dean (second)who has clearly articulated that the war was a sham. In addition, their social policies are NOT Republican lite! These are the guys who are being minimized and demonized and marginalized by the mainstream press (and the DLC) because either one of them provides a clear alternative to the current occupant of the White House. Either one of them would win hands down in the general election.

Because I believe they are equally capable and are the only two who can take down Bush, I have contributed equal amounts to their campaigns. If there is any justice for us Democrats they will come in first and second in NH, and will continue to dominate the other primaries until one of them becomes the clear Presidential nominee. I would then hope the other would join as Vice President in the interest of this country to assure a second one-term Bush presidency!

Clark and Dean...My #1 & 2, and quite possibly the only hope we have to get us out of this mess, either way.

eom

i'm with ya otherwise. i'll do ABB but i'll only support clark, dean and kuch.

I saw him speak at the Health and Harmony Festival in Sebastopol CA this past May (pardon my digression) and I was electrifed!!!. If only he had a chance. I am being a realist. He says the truth but realistically, he's won't be the nominee. Maybe, if we get the White House and wake up the country, there would be a chance for Dennis. But remember, his voice and his arguments have required that the other candidates state how they stand. That's why it has become clear that Kerry and Edwards and Lieberman are NOT for me.

It would have been great if the "mainstream" media hadn't unilaterally decided that he has no chance. In reality, most presidential contenders have only a small change. But the media has done America a GREAT dis-service by dissing Dennis.

He is EVERYTHING the media establishment is afraid of. He's a straight talker. He is a peacenik, meaning that he won't start any meaningless wars. You can't overlook this because media types LOVE wars. It's just plain good for ratings. And the Bush's have served them up readily.

The Hearst empire has virtually been re-established. Expect now there a 3 or four Hearsts (including Rupert Merdoc). They pull the strings and decide what will be shown on the news. Most "local" papers are now owned by media conglomerates. Thank god for the Internet, otherwise we'd all be lapping it up.

BTW, Clark is another "straight shooter" and I'm VERY eager for him to adopt the most important part of Kucinich's platform: Canceling NAFTA and WTO. Since Michael Moore has endorsed Clark, I'm pretty sure this is his goal. Publicly making such an announcement would bring him the stardom of Kucinich. Not that the media doesn't HATE him already, they do (Jennings (asshole)). But it will be difficult to raise any corporate money in the presence of such an announcement.

My hope is that Clark is the nominee and inserts this into his campaign in the main haul against Bush. Bush will be unable to counter.

Go Clark - President

Dean, Edwards or Kucinich for VEEP!!!!!

I think that Joe Lieberman has the only honest, heartfelt position among our Senatorial candidates regarding IWR -- he thought it was a GREAT idea, voted for it and would do it AGAIN.

I suspect, deeply suspect, that it was a political move for Kerry and Edwards. They saw how voting against the President's "with us or against us" issues killed off Max Cleland; saw that the vote was likely to pass anyway; then hopped on the bandwagon. The limited backpedaling now is just spin.

Hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans could plainly see what Bush/Cheney was up to. In honesty, how could our Senators not know.

I guess that fortunately for Kerry and Edwards, IWR isn't going to be a make or break issue in the democratic primaries and if it doesn't hurt them here, it sure as hell isn't going to hurt them in the GE.

If I were Kerry or Edward's advisors, I would tell them to say- "I trusted the President when he told us over and over that Saddam was a threat...if the critisism against me is that I should not have trusted the president, then I accept that..."

This will play with the moderates who also "trusted" Bush and who dont want to be made to feel stupid...

At the very least, it will remind people that Bush was the one who was doing the lying to justify war, not Kerry or Edwards...

What's his fucking excuse for lying to Congress??????

bickering with you because if you had actually read the full transcript you wouldn't be quite so excited and certain.

That's why I know what he said. Saddam had chem/bio weapons and was a threat. So all this "I knew" Bush was lying all along stuff is a bunch of bullshit.

Or is this just more tripe?

He was on record saying there was no imminent threat from Iraq. No plans to use W.M.D., no delivery system, no nuclear weapons program close to building a bomb. Sure, Clark thought Hussein had some mustard gas and anthrax and the same ol' that he had already used against the Kurds and against Iran. That was no threat to the U.S. and Clark testified to that effect. He got it right. Furthermore, Clark has been all over Bush around it, and he backs it up to attack Bush for pre 9/11 conduct, and he extends it forward to attack PNAC's plans for regional conquest.

It is tiring when people parse words too finely. You should know that as a Kerry supporter. Personally I am more sympathetic to Kerry's stated position vis a vis the Resolution than some other Clark and Dean supporters. I know as President Kerry wouldn't pull the crap Clark did, so yes I would support Kerry as the nominee if it came to that. But the more attacks on Clark that come out of Kerry's camp, the longer it will take me to get any energy up to actually campaign for Kerry if he wins.

for starters.

I do not appreciate this use the "I was deceived" like it's all just political gamesmanship. Clark sat down in Congress and testified that Saddam had weapons and needed to be disarmed and progress should be made in that direction. He said militarily if necessary. Now that was as much a part of his testimony as anything. I agree that he was correct in his choice to wait. But he doesn't get a pass on the "I was deceived" business because he was one of the people testifying to Congress that Saddam was a threat in the first place.

He knew pre-emptive war was a bad policy. Kerry voted to give Bush a pass. He now says that the "pass" assumed he would build a coalition (a real one). Clearly Bush never intended this. Kerry was deceived.

I defend Kerry constantly on this board...

This is REALLY what I would tell him to say.

It would help expose Bush as deceptive on the war...BUSH is the one who lied and decieved, not Kerry or Edwards...

No need to attack fellow DEMS is what I always say...

I don't even care whether he was right or wrong, that's not the point. Clark got his intelligence from the exact same place Congress did. He probably had access to more intelligence than Congress did. Clark was one of the people who testified to Congress. It isn't about what someone "should say". It's about the goddamn truth and the fact that there isn't one candidate who "knew" a damn thing.

It is ALL about communication. People need to know that Bush is the bad guy who lied and decieved his way to war, not the DEMS...

If the media is going to try to portray any of the DEMs in a bad light, then they should turn the focus where it belongs- on Bush- this war is his Baby...

It IS all about what they say- how else are they supposed to communicate in today's media???

such a foul mouth. Love your candidate, but don't intimidate us. Sounds kinda like something Cheney would do. Sure you're for Kerrey?

I need to get my Kerrys right.

I do agree that politically this is the right way for both of them to play the issue.

Puts Bush on the defensive. You sound like a political pro.

I believe we can beat Bush. I refuse to be disappointed again. I believe we can take back Congress. We just can't be cowards. That's why we need Clark or Dean. They have GUTS!!

How do you just ignore that? How? It's beyond me.

HOWEVER! He did indicate that there were alternatives to WAR! Inspections, continued enforcement of the no-fly zones, UN and international involvement. His (and Clinton's) approach was working since clearly, there are no WMDs today. People forget that we bombed incursions out of the no-fly zone for ten years. That was a cheap and effective alternative to Bush's "Payback for dissin' Daddy" war!! (Note: No lives were lost in the enforcement of the No Fly Zone Policy. Bush: 513 and counting! Like I want to count!)

Don't forget them.

I cried when this war started, I knew who the true victims were. I knew shock and awe carried with it a total disregard for human (Iraqi) life. Notice that most of the former regime members have been captured alive including Sadaam (will he suffer Noriega's fate? Does he know too much?). This is why war is so disgusting. They don't show us the armless, the legless, the blind...American soldiers...Iraqi citizens..Bush has an aversion to funerals, bans the press from covering. Does he have that right? Why is this glorified??

:toast:

I have been Dean 1-Clark 2 for months now, and at times, there was somuch fighting between camps that I wan'ted to SCREEEEAM! ;-) But now that the race is on, I am loving the positive vibes between the two camps!

Go DEAN!!! Go CLAK!!! Go DEMS!!!
:bounce: :toast: :bounce: :toast:

:kick:

If you claim Bush wasn't deceived but Kerry was, where's the defining line? (not the orig. poster, but Kerry people)

or somthing like that. I would not say "I was decieved"...The focus needs to be turned on Bush and away from Kerry...

but this is about why I support Clark or Dean. The focus is on Bush as it should be. Kerry and Edwards do need to justify their support for the IWR. At least to those of us that are so against this unjustified war.

Not a very good selling point.

...if thge media keeps harping on it as if the was the DEMS fault, then why not start pointing out that Bush lied and started this whole thing based on trumped up evidence...

I would have him say somthing like:
"You are supposed to be able to trust the President on matters as important as this..."




Most voters who also believed Bush will accept this

1. An easily deceived person.
2. A person who functions as the tool of another person or power.

* first lied in September of 2002 about the IAEA having put out a recent report suggesting that Saddam was within 6 months of having a nuclear weapon. There was no such IAEA report. Mr. Kerry should have picked up the clue phone but instead voted for the IWR. That was his choice, but to now claim that he was DECEIVED suggests that he was a DUPE.

I dont see how. Who do you want to win in 2004- a DEM or Bush? Think.

I'd vote for the DUPE but I'd fight for the DEAN.

some columnist (a liberal one but I forget who) said that that much naivete in a presidential candidate is not a positive thing.

that will set a horrible precedent. Very few du'ers were convinced that chimp was truthing.

Adam Nagourney
New York Times, September 19, 2003

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=162&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0&POSTNUKESID=83eeec5a53e0f522216b34ad0dcd2f43