Who's the pipsqueek on Crossfire...?

The little whiner next to tucker...is this dolt for real...?

:D

people actually listen to that guy...?

Yikes...!

The guy next to him...didn't get his name either...he was kickin rethug ass...!

until the rapidfire segment. His answer about Kerry's missed meeting on the intelligence committee sucked. And they've had how long to come with a response to that? The repukes have made an ad about it for crissakes. He knew he would be asked about it.x(

that he's part of the Rove "brain trust" so he has to do most of his work behind the scenes.

Steve McMahon was totally unprepared to answer a question from Tucker about why Kerry thinks it doesn't make any sense to remove troops from Europe. Inexcusable. Earlier today, on Wolf Blitzer, Wesley Clarke was thoroughly prepared and extremely articulate on the issue.

But what I'm really disgusted with is the pounding Kerry took from both Tucker and Ed Rogers for his vote in favor of the Iraq War Resolution, and his recent response that his vote wouldn't be any different today. The Repubs WON'T let up on this, folks. Kerry's dug himself such a deep hole by now that they will continue to get away with statements like Rogers' that Kerry wants to have it all three ways on the issue. McMahon's "nuance" rebuttal that Kerry thought the President should have the *authority* to go to war, but probably wouldn't have gone to war himself, since he would have allowed the U.N. inspectors to complete their job and wouldn't have gone without a true coalition (read: NATO backing) is the same BS Kerry's been spouting since the primaries began. It hinges on some supposed "promise" Bush made which Kerry has repeated ad nauseum that he wouldn't go to war except as a last resort, and then only with the full backing of the U.N. Bullshit. I've read the IWR and there's NOTHING in there that required Bush to go to war with Iraq "only as a last resort" and NOTHING in there that required Bush to have the full backing of the U.N. before invading Iraq, and NEVERTHELESS KERRY VOTED FOR THAT RESOLUTION. Reading the text of the IWR itself is agonizing, because it proves what a spineless hypocrite Kerry has consistently been about this. This could kill his campaign and hand us four more years of agonizing nightmares under the Bushistas. I'm so sick of Kerry's crap on this issue I could puke.

If the retiring Republican Senator from Nevada can admit the war was wrong and he would have voted differently with the benefit of hindsight, why can't Kerry????

I hope someone out there connected to the Kerry campaign can wake our only hope for getting rid of Bush on this Iraq stuff.

have made it clear that Bush bungled Iraq form start to finish. Can we Americans trust Bush's faulty judgement to keep us out of future wars? That is the question voters will ask themselves.

Kerry's campaign makes the case that the senator is the more competent of the two.

if you believe that your question is "the question voters will ask themselves."

Both on Crossfire and on Tweety's show today, the Republican talking point has been consistent: Bush is on the attack about where Kerry has stood on Iraq and Kerry is on the defensive, rather than the other way around. With mainstream and cable media in the hands of right-wingers in this country, THEY control the framing of the issues, NOT the voters (and it is THEIR message framed as THEY want it framed, that the voters will be exposed to on a daily basis), and certainly not the more moderate to liberal voters among is who have either always believed the IWR was wrong to start with, that invading Iraq was wrong to start with, or that at the very least, in retrospect, seemingly everyone on the planet except Kerry and the Bushistas and the average American voter (constantly bombarded through the media with the right wing's message) can easily discern that most Americans plus a Congressional majority were deceived about the reasons stated for the need for the IWR and the need for war in the first place.

I just heard Tweety ask Howard Dean in several very pointed ways why Kerry, now that it's clear that the evidence in support of Bush's argument in favor of war was wrong on every level, can't simply say he would vote differently today. Even Howard Dean couldn't explain it away in any comprehensible way. He rambled on about how even though he disagrees with Kerry, he admires Kerry's "courage" in remaining consistent in defense of his position, then became incoherent rambling about how prior to Bush this was a "bipartisan country", as if that somehow addressed the issue raised. If even Howard Dean can't coherently defend Kerry's position without becoming incoherent, we're in really, really big trouble.

Kerry can NOT win on the Iraq issue if he continues down his besotted path. Imagine Bush hammering him in a debate: "Senator Kerry, you keep saying I broke a promise not to invade Iraq except as a last resort and only with the full backing of the U.N. Prove I ever made such a promise. No, forget it. We all know you can't prove it because there's no documented evidence to support your claim. It's a total fiction you invented as a political attack. In fact, you simply voted to give me all power and discretion in deciding if, when, and how we should invade Iraq, because that's what you voted for when you voted in favor of the IWR, and you know it, I know it, and the American people know it. We both clearly believed Iraq posed a threat to us, and thanks to your vote, and the vote of the vast majority of Congress, I, as commander in chief, had to make a judgment call. I stand by my judgment call just as you stand by your vote in favor of my making that judgment call."

Kerry can't get past that hurdle, and will have lost all credibility by the time the issue about how Bush has handled the war arises.

Kerry's campaign may be attempting to "make the case that the senator is the more competent of the two" but no one is listening because the mainstream and cable media isn't allowing the voters to hear that. They're making Bush's case in attacking Kerry about his stand on Iraq from the time he voted for the IWR, or in right-wing parlance, "voted in favor of the war", or "supported the war, and still does", and THAT's all most Americans are hearing. Most Americans therefore will have an extremely difficult time perceiving any difference between Kerry and Bush on the issue of Iraq. They want a choice, and they're not getting it. So even most disaffected Republicans, not wanting to vote for Bush, don't like Kerry either, because they see no difference, just politicking. And who knows who they'll vote for. God help us if they just vote along traditional party lines. Kerry will go down with a thud Nov. 2 and I personally will hold him responsible for handing us all the nightmare of 4 more years of Bushistaland if that happens.

I missed Crossfire today, but if its a Repuke, its a dolt! :D

Tucker must like him.