Kerry wants Tenet (CIA) to take the fall for W
"Kerry calls for Tenet's resignation"
Author Antidolt
Just reported on CNN. Sorry, Kerry, but you're a day late and many dollars short. Put the blame on Mame.
http://bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=11&topic_id=8756&mesg_id=875 6&page
the press barely reported it:
"http://sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=c/a/2004/01/29/WMDS.TMP">http://sfgate.com/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/01/29/WMDS.TMP
The front-runner, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, speaking Wednesday as he flew to St. Louis to campaign in the Missouri primary, said Kay's testimony called into question the integrity of American intelligence, and he urged the administration to come clean.
During the debate, Brokaw asked Kerry:
BROKAW: Senator Kerry, Governor Dean has made a very serious charge against the vice president, saying that he went to the CIA. We know that he did that, but do you believe that he berated middle-level people at the intelligence agency to, in effect, shape the intelligence that he wanted?
As usual, Kerry hedged - vague agreement than change the subject:
KERRY: There is a very legitimate question, Tom, about what the vice president of the United States was doing at the CIA. There's an enormous question about the exaggeration by this administration.
But the most important point -- and I think this is the larger issue of how you choose somebody to run and to be president of the United States. The president gave guarantees not just to the Congress and to the American people, but to the world, about how he would conduct himself as president. "
Set aside that 23 Senators and all of us didn't buy those guarantees, you promissed to speak up if broken and didn't - until it became convenient, in the campaign
Warrior King - the case for impeaching GW Bush by John C Bonifaz and John Conyers:
"If he fails to do so," Senator Kerry continued, "I will be the first to speak out."
Senator Kerry broke that promise ... In the crucial days after the president withdrew his efforts to gain United Nations support for his war and before the president launched his invasion, Senator Kerry remained silent.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2094399/
But I still think that the important issue tonight was : who was responsible for the WMD lies? Kerry skirted it.
Thankfully, Clark helped the truth:
This administration did not have its priorities right, and the president, not the intelligence community, and not the previous administration, President George W. Bush must be held accountable for that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/transcripts/debatetranscript29.html
Kerry wants Tenet (CIA) to take the fall for W | 7 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
Clark's statement on W's liabilotu (not CIA's) (#7) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/06/2004 07:23:49 PM EST
Reply
For Immediate Release
Date: February 6, 2004
http://clark04.com/press/release/229/
Statement On The President's New Intelligence Commission
Clark says: President shouldn't blame CIA for failures: "They report; he decides"
Little Rock - General Wesley Clark issued the following statement on today's announcement by President Bush of his new commission to investigate intelligence failures on Iraqi weapons.
"President Bush's announcement today is a disappointment but not a surprise - George W. Bush's presidency has been a series of failures followed by buck-passing.
"The President of the United States must be responsible for the use of intelligence by his Administration. The President should not use a panel like the one announced today to lay blame on the intelligence community, whose job it is to provide information to policy makers. If there were failures, they were his - the buck should stop with him. As the President's favorite network would say, 'they report; he decides.'
"The President also should not be using a panel to sweep pressing issues under the rug. Waiting until 2005 for the commission's report simply is not acceptable - if there is a major threat posed by these weapons, we should have that information in 90 days, not a year from now.
"I also would like to know why the commission is being created now - it appears that the President delayed the creation of the commission and created a report date in a way that makes it difficult for citizens to know the degree of responsibility and accountability of this administration. This follows the 9/11 Commission - the Administration put up road blocks and delays so that Americans won't hear their report until after the election. George Bush's modus operandi is to keep the public in the dark. I believe that in a democracy the government belongs to the people and I'll be a president who believes in being accountable to the people, not hiding from the people."
Tenet: WMD no imminent danger (#6) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/05/2004 06:38:06 PM EST
Reply
Is that why you wanted him silenced, John?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2004-02-05-tenet_x.htm
CIA director defends intel officials' prewar efforts
From staff and wire reports
WASHINGTON -- CIA Director George Tenet acknowledged serious intelligence misjudgments leading up to the war with Iraq on Thursday but defended his agency's overall performance. He also said the CIA never claimed Iraqi weapons were an imminent threat -- an argument the administration used as a major justification for the war.
Tenet fights back, John! (#5) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 02/05/2004 06:28:29 AM EST
Reply
washingtonpost.com
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14074-2004Feb4.html
Tenet to Defend CIA's Role In Prewar Iraq Intelligence
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, February 5, 2004; Page A01
CIA Director George J. Tenet plans today to deliver a spirited and highly unusual public defense of his agency's prewar conclusions that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, and to disclose previously secret success the CIA had in uncovering weapons programs in Libya and Pakistan, senior intelligence officials said yesterday.
Friday, January 30, 2004
Thursday, January 29, 2004
Letter to Sidney Blumenthal - Lieutenant slander
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Call To Action) on Thu Jan 29th, 2004 at 01:00:13 AM EST
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL
Subject: The "Lieutenant" slander of Clark
It breaks my heart to see someone like you whose opinion I trusted getting into this slander. Are you even aware that Kerry retracted his "outrage" Sunday morning on Face the Nation?
Here's what prompted the "scandalous" statement:
Larry King Show:
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
Clark never complained about this one:
MATTHEWS: There are two men in this campaign who are running who have military background. You've got a couple of stars, medals and so does General Clark. Compare you with him.
KERRY: Well I have great respect for General Clark, but he has been a military man all his life. He has been a general.
MATTHEWS: Is he a headquarters guy and you're a field guy?
KERRY: He has generally been. No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career. By and large General Clark has not had the breadth of experience in foreign policy and I think there's an enormous difference between us. I have spent 35 years-you know when I came back from Vietnam, I stood up and fought against the war. I've...
MATTHEWS: Well how did he get a Silver Star if he wasn't in action?
KERRY: I said he was. I said he had...
MATTHEWS: Right.
KERRY: ... one brief, I believe, tour in the field like that, and then he as a general. Look, I'm not disrespectful of General Clark, but there's a difference between us in the levels of our experience. There's also a difference in the values that we fought for through a lifetime. When General Clark was voting for Richard Nixon and voting for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of them. When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America.
I have served on the Narcotics Terrorism Committee as chairman. I wrote a book about-called "The New War". I have been involved in opening the Philippines and getting rid of Marcos and bringing Cory Aquino to power. I personally negotiated in Cambodia in order to try to get the tribunals for.
http://msnbc.msn.com/?id=3053419
On Face the Nation Sunday , Kerry said they cleared up the misunderstanding and that the campaign should not be fought on this ground. Sounded gracious, but he thought nothing of letting the slur hang later on in the 60 minutes interview. Not very honorable.
Clark's last word on this:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/27/wbr.00.html
CLARK: Well, I think John Kerry did a fine job in Vietnam. I was there about the same time. I also was a junior officer in Vietnam. I was a company commander.
snip
BLITZER: Do you owe John Kerry a little bit of an apology for sort of that tone of what you said?
CLARK: I think that John Kerry and I have already had that discussion.
And it's very clear that -- my son was a lieutenant and I was a lieutenant. And no Democrat and no Republican will ever drive a wedge between me and our nation's veterans. It's just that simple.
I am surprised that someone like you, knowledgeable in the media bias and its destructive power is joining the pack. Check your facts.
Clark always talked respectfully of Kerry. Kerry on the other hand beamed as a veteran was repeating Shelton's smears about Clark. How can you endorse and perpetrate this?
I was admiring you so much after "Clinton Wars" - but now I am bitterly disappointed.
**
"Is America ready for another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas?
"I hope so. We make the best presidents!"
Letter to Sidney Blumenthal - Lieutenant slander | 4 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
Ocelot's letter (#4) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 04:05:08 PM EST
Reply
(#116) (Rated 5.00/5)
by Ocelot on 01/29/2004 03:32:59 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I just sent this letter to Sidney Blumental, c/o Salon.com. Sorry it's kind of long, but I was pretty steamed.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
Although I have long been a fan of yours, I was deeply dismayed and disappointed to read your recent opinion piece at Salon.com in which - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - you cavalierly dismiss General Wesley Clark as an "amateur" who has been essentially eliminated from contention in the primaries. Those of us - and there are many - who have been working diligently on General Clark's campaign have become rather accustomed to something of a media blackout. Somehow, it has been decided by you media pundits (though not by the voters, not by a long shot) that General Clark is not a serious contender. This has been decided even though his poll numbers remain solid, and despite the fact that even though the campaign in the southern states has just begun, he has an excellent chance of winning in many of those states. For some reason, though, the media coverage has ranged from dismissive to downright vicious, a fact that utterly baffles me.
Why have so many of you decided to try to marginalize the one candidate who probably has the best chance of prevailing against George Bush in the general election? Is it because your imaginations are so limited that you can't conceive of the possibility that an "amateur" - that is, someone who is not a career politician - could successfully run for president? Is it because the continued success of your own careers depends upon access to established Washington hacks like Kerry and Edwards? Are all of you just too lazy to do your own independent evaluations of a candidate and his campaign instead of just repeating what all of the other pundits have just said, in an endless chorus of "me, too; me, too"? I have no doubt that some commentators simply want another four years of Bush; their agenda is obvious. But you? I just don't get it. The motive escapes me.
First, you write: "Clark insisted on being drafted to run by a committee that had been created for that purpose." Clark didn't "insist" upon being drafted. He was, in fact, rather reluctant to give up his new career in business. For the very first time in his life he was becoming financially successful. He had no real reason to want to run for president, but over 50,000 people pestered and argued and cajoled until he decided, once again, to pursue a path of public service - even though he had already spent 34 years of his life doing exactly that. For you to suggest that the draft movement was his idea is insulting and just plain wrong. For that accusation alone you owe him an apology.
You also write that "[t]he elements that Clark sought to assemble were held by others: Kerry owned electability; Edwards, Southern identity; and Dean, the Washington outsider. A man of parts, Clark was left in pieces." Parts? In pieces? Excuse me? Clark has all of those qualities - electability, Southern identity and outsider status. None of the others has what Clark has. Kerry, notwithstanding his military background, is just an old-style Washington politician who during his career has managed to miss something like 60% of the votes in the Senate, including the recent vote on the Omnibus bill. Kerry was too busy campaigning in New Hampshire to try to stop the Republican majority from taking away workers' rights to overtime pay. Clark, in contrast, gave up four days of his campaign in order to testify against the war criminla Milosevic. And his electability is probably limited to the Northeast. To the rest of the country, especially the South, he will be shown to be another unelectable Northern liberal like Mondale and Dukakis. Edwards has Southern identity - period. He is glib and attractive, but has been a senator for only one term. He has no foreign policy credentials and precious little else. And Dean, the so-called "outsider," has spent most of the last few weeks currying favor with the insiders, like Al Gore. Moreover, despite all that sucking up, if anyone's campaign is in trouble clearly it's Dean's. Clark has all of these incomplete candidates' "electable" qualities - hardly a candidate in pieces.
You go on to accuse Clark of "attempting to pull rank" by dismissing Kerry "as a mere lieutenant." Did you actually hear that exchange? It's been spun by the lazy media into something it clearly was not. Bob Dole, long known for his nasty, snarky "wit," rudely and disrespectfully suggested to Clark that after Iowa, Kerry was now the general and he (Clark) was just a colonel. Dole, himself a veteran, clearly intended the insult. Clark (also hampered somewhat by evident difficulty in hearing clearly through his earpiece) was simply responding to the insulting metaphor Dol;e used to describe Kerry's recent political success, and not disprespecting Kerry's service. In fact, Clark has always been complimentary and respectful of that service.
And then you criticize him for failing to distance himself from Michael Moore's claim that Bush was a deserter. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that Moore is not a "self-promoting left-wing comedian," but has achieved some deserved attention as an effective and increasingly popular liberal polemicist at a time when left-wing polemicists are desperately needed to counter the lies and venom of the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The more important point is that Clark rightly refused to repudiate Moore's claim because he felt he had no right or obligation to try to censor the opinions of those who support him, and also lacked factual information sufficient for him to agree or disagree with Moore's allegations. Indeed, there are substantial facts suggesting that Moore may be correct.But it's the job of the news media - which, so far, has been pitifully lazy and ineffective in following up on this issue -- to get to the truth. I would add that since nobody has ever asked Bush to disavow the constant smears perpetrated by some of his supporters - such as Ann Coulter's insistence that all liberals and Democrats are traitors - why should Clark or any other candidate be held to any different standard? Clark did exactly what an honorable person should have done under the circumstances; he owes no explanation or apology to anyone. Had he repudiated Moore I would have been disappointed in him.
We have seen far too much of this kind of dismissive commentary about General Clark from the right wing, probably because a Clark candidacy really is Karl Rove's worst nightmare. But to see it coming from those on the left, as well, is beyond disappointing. I am not about to give up on this campaign because I, and many others, are absolutely certain that any chance of evicting George Bush from the White House will be lost, and the Democratic Party with it, if the nominee is anyone other than General Clark. I desperately hope that you and other liberal writers (I expect nothing from those on the right) will find your intellectual honesty again and write a truly fair evaluation of this most qualified candidate.
Thank you.
Link: (#3) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 03:05:28 PM EST
Parent | Reply
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/01/29/clark_lieberman/
Excellent letter. (#2) (No rating)
by snyttri on 01/29/2004 01:43:07 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Blumenthal owes you a response to your sound reasoning.
Great Letter Robbed (#1) (No rating)
by Sybil on 01/29/2004 01:38:58 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Is there a link to Blumenthal's statement? I haven't heard about this, what did he say?
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Call To Action) on Thu Jan 29th, 2004 at 01:00:13 AM EST
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL
Subject: The "Lieutenant" slander of Clark
It breaks my heart to see someone like you whose opinion I trusted getting into this slander. Are you even aware that Kerry retracted his "outrage" Sunday morning on Face the Nation?
Here's what prompted the "scandalous" statement:
Larry King Show:
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
Clark never complained about this one:
MATTHEWS: There are two men in this campaign who are running who have military background. You've got a couple of stars, medals and so does General Clark. Compare you with him.
KERRY: Well I have great respect for General Clark, but he has been a military man all his life. He has been a general.
MATTHEWS: Is he a headquarters guy and you're a field guy?
KERRY: He has generally been. No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career. By and large General Clark has not had the breadth of experience in foreign policy and I think there's an enormous difference between us. I have spent 35 years-you know when I came back from Vietnam, I stood up and fought against the war. I've...
MATTHEWS: Well how did he get a Silver Star if he wasn't in action?
KERRY: I said he was. I said he had...
MATTHEWS: Right.
KERRY: ... one brief, I believe, tour in the field like that, and then he as a general. Look, I'm not disrespectful of General Clark, but there's a difference between us in the levels of our experience. There's also a difference in the values that we fought for through a lifetime. When General Clark was voting for Richard Nixon and voting for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of them. When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America.
I have served on the Narcotics Terrorism Committee as chairman. I wrote a book about-called "The New War". I have been involved in opening the Philippines and getting rid of Marcos and bringing Cory Aquino to power. I personally negotiated in Cambodia in order to try to get the tribunals for.
http://msnbc.msn.com/?id=3053419
On Face the Nation Sunday , Kerry said they cleared up the misunderstanding and that the campaign should not be fought on this ground. Sounded gracious, but he thought nothing of letting the slur hang later on in the 60 minutes interview. Not very honorable.
Clark's last word on this:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/27/wbr.00.html
CLARK: Well, I think John Kerry did a fine job in Vietnam. I was there about the same time. I also was a junior officer in Vietnam. I was a company commander.
snip
BLITZER: Do you owe John Kerry a little bit of an apology for sort of that tone of what you said?
CLARK: I think that John Kerry and I have already had that discussion.
And it's very clear that -- my son was a lieutenant and I was a lieutenant. And no Democrat and no Republican will ever drive a wedge between me and our nation's veterans. It's just that simple.
I am surprised that someone like you, knowledgeable in the media bias and its destructive power is joining the pack. Check your facts.
Clark always talked respectfully of Kerry. Kerry on the other hand beamed as a veteran was repeating Shelton's smears about Clark. How can you endorse and perpetrate this?
I was admiring you so much after "Clinton Wars" - but now I am bitterly disappointed.
**
"Is America ready for another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas?
"I hope so. We make the best presidents!"
Letter to Sidney Blumenthal - Lieutenant slander | 4 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
Ocelot's letter (#4) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 04:05:08 PM EST
Reply
(#116) (Rated 5.00/5)
by Ocelot on 01/29/2004 03:32:59 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I just sent this letter to Sidney Blumental, c/o Salon.com. Sorry it's kind of long, but I was pretty steamed.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
Although I have long been a fan of yours, I was deeply dismayed and disappointed to read your recent opinion piece at Salon.com in which - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - you cavalierly dismiss General Wesley Clark as an "amateur" who has been essentially eliminated from contention in the primaries. Those of us - and there are many - who have been working diligently on General Clark's campaign have become rather accustomed to something of a media blackout. Somehow, it has been decided by you media pundits (though not by the voters, not by a long shot) that General Clark is not a serious contender. This has been decided even though his poll numbers remain solid, and despite the fact that even though the campaign in the southern states has just begun, he has an excellent chance of winning in many of those states. For some reason, though, the media coverage has ranged from dismissive to downright vicious, a fact that utterly baffles me.
Why have so many of you decided to try to marginalize the one candidate who probably has the best chance of prevailing against George Bush in the general election? Is it because your imaginations are so limited that you can't conceive of the possibility that an "amateur" - that is, someone who is not a career politician - could successfully run for president? Is it because the continued success of your own careers depends upon access to established Washington hacks like Kerry and Edwards? Are all of you just too lazy to do your own independent evaluations of a candidate and his campaign instead of just repeating what all of the other pundits have just said, in an endless chorus of "me, too; me, too"? I have no doubt that some commentators simply want another four years of Bush; their agenda is obvious. But you? I just don't get it. The motive escapes me.
First, you write: "Clark insisted on being drafted to run by a committee that had been created for that purpose." Clark didn't "insist" upon being drafted. He was, in fact, rather reluctant to give up his new career in business. For the very first time in his life he was becoming financially successful. He had no real reason to want to run for president, but over 50,000 people pestered and argued and cajoled until he decided, once again, to pursue a path of public service - even though he had already spent 34 years of his life doing exactly that. For you to suggest that the draft movement was his idea is insulting and just plain wrong. For that accusation alone you owe him an apology.
You also write that "[t]he elements that Clark sought to assemble were held by others: Kerry owned electability; Edwards, Southern identity; and Dean, the Washington outsider. A man of parts, Clark was left in pieces." Parts? In pieces? Excuse me? Clark has all of those qualities - electability, Southern identity and outsider status. None of the others has what Clark has. Kerry, notwithstanding his military background, is just an old-style Washington politician who during his career has managed to miss something like 60% of the votes in the Senate, including the recent vote on the Omnibus bill. Kerry was too busy campaigning in New Hampshire to try to stop the Republican majority from taking away workers' rights to overtime pay. Clark, in contrast, gave up four days of his campaign in order to testify against the war criminla Milosevic. And his electability is probably limited to the Northeast. To the rest of the country, especially the South, he will be shown to be another unelectable Northern liberal like Mondale and Dukakis. Edwards has Southern identity - period. He is glib and attractive, but has been a senator for only one term. He has no foreign policy credentials and precious little else. And Dean, the so-called "outsider," has spent most of the last few weeks currying favor with the insiders, like Al Gore. Moreover, despite all that sucking up, if anyone's campaign is in trouble clearly it's Dean's. Clark has all of these incomplete candidates' "electable" qualities - hardly a candidate in pieces.
You go on to accuse Clark of "attempting to pull rank" by dismissing Kerry "as a mere lieutenant." Did you actually hear that exchange? It's been spun by the lazy media into something it clearly was not. Bob Dole, long known for his nasty, snarky "wit," rudely and disrespectfully suggested to Clark that after Iowa, Kerry was now the general and he (Clark) was just a colonel. Dole, himself a veteran, clearly intended the insult. Clark (also hampered somewhat by evident difficulty in hearing clearly through his earpiece) was simply responding to the insulting metaphor Dol;e used to describe Kerry's recent political success, and not disprespecting Kerry's service. In fact, Clark has always been complimentary and respectful of that service.
And then you criticize him for failing to distance himself from Michael Moore's claim that Bush was a deserter. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that Moore is not a "self-promoting left-wing comedian," but has achieved some deserved attention as an effective and increasingly popular liberal polemicist at a time when left-wing polemicists are desperately needed to counter the lies and venom of the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The more important point is that Clark rightly refused to repudiate Moore's claim because he felt he had no right or obligation to try to censor the opinions of those who support him, and also lacked factual information sufficient for him to agree or disagree with Moore's allegations. Indeed, there are substantial facts suggesting that Moore may be correct.But it's the job of the news media - which, so far, has been pitifully lazy and ineffective in following up on this issue -- to get to the truth. I would add that since nobody has ever asked Bush to disavow the constant smears perpetrated by some of his supporters - such as Ann Coulter's insistence that all liberals and Democrats are traitors - why should Clark or any other candidate be held to any different standard? Clark did exactly what an honorable person should have done under the circumstances; he owes no explanation or apology to anyone. Had he repudiated Moore I would have been disappointed in him.
We have seen far too much of this kind of dismissive commentary about General Clark from the right wing, probably because a Clark candidacy really is Karl Rove's worst nightmare. But to see it coming from those on the left, as well, is beyond disappointing. I am not about to give up on this campaign because I, and many others, are absolutely certain that any chance of evicting George Bush from the White House will be lost, and the Democratic Party with it, if the nominee is anyone other than General Clark. I desperately hope that you and other liberal writers (I expect nothing from those on the right) will find your intellectual honesty again and write a truly fair evaluation of this most qualified candidate.
Thank you.
Link: (#3) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 03:05:28 PM EST
Parent | Reply
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/01/29/clark_lieberman/
Excellent letter. (#2) (No rating)
by snyttri on 01/29/2004 01:43:07 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Blumenthal owes you a response to your sound reasoning.
Great Letter Robbed (#1) (No rating)
by Sybil on 01/29/2004 01:38:58 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Is there a link to Blumenthal's statement? I haven't heard about this, what did he say?
Letter to Sidney Blumenthal - Lieutenant slander
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Call To Action) on Thu Jan 29th, 2004 at 01:00:13 AM EST
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL
Subject: The "Lieutenant" slander of Clark
It breaks my heart to see someone like you whose opinion I trusted getting into this slander. Are you even aware that Kerry retracted his "outrage" Sunday morning on Face the Nation?
Here's what prompted the "scandalous" statement:
Larry King Show:
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
Clark never complained about this one:
MATTHEWS: There are two men in this campaign who are running who have military background. You've got a couple of stars, medals and so does General Clark. Compare you with him.
KERRY: Well I have great respect for General Clark, but he has been a military man all his life. He has been a general.
MATTHEWS: Is he a headquarters guy and you're a field guy?
KERRY: He has generally been. No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career. By and large General Clark has not had the breadth of experience in foreign policy and I think there's an enormous difference between us. I have spent 35 years-you know when I came back from Vietnam, I stood up and fought against the war. I've...
MATTHEWS: Well how did he get a Silver Star if he wasn't in action?
KERRY: I said he was. I said he had...
MATTHEWS: Right.
KERRY: ... one brief, I believe, tour in the field like that, and then he as a general. Look, I'm not disrespectful of General Clark, but there's a difference between us in the levels of our experience. There's also a difference in the values that we fought for through a lifetime. When General Clark was voting for Richard Nixon and voting for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of them. When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America.
I have served on the Narcotics Terrorism Committee as chairman. I wrote a book about-called "The New War". I have been involved in opening the Philippines and getting rid of Marcos and bringing Cory Aquino to power. I personally negotiated in Cambodia in order to try to get the tribunals for.
http://msnbc.msn.com/?id=3053419
On Face the Nation Sunday , Kerry said they cleared up the misunderstanding and that the campaign should not be fought on this ground. Sounded gracious, but he thought nothing of letting the slur hang later on in the 60 minutes interview. Not very honorable.
Clark's last word on this:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/27/wbr.00.html
CLARK: Well, I think John Kerry did a fine job in Vietnam. I was there about the same time. I also was a junior officer in Vietnam. I was a company commander.
snip
BLITZER: Do you owe John Kerry a little bit of an apology for sort of that tone of what you said?
CLARK: I think that John Kerry and I have already had that discussion.
And it's very clear that -- my son was a lieutenant and I was a lieutenant. And no Democrat and no Republican will ever drive a wedge between me and our nation's veterans. It's just that simple.
I am surprised that someone like you, knowledgeable in the media bias and its destructive power is joining the pack. Check your facts.
Clark always talked respectfully of Kerry. Kerry on the other hand beamed as a veteran was repeating Shelton's smears about Clark. How can you endorse and perpetrate this?
I was admiring you so much after "Clinton Wars" - but now I am bitterly disappointed.
**
"Is America ready for another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas?
"I hope so. We make the best presidents!"
Letter to Sidney Blumenthal - Lieutenant slander | 4 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
Ocelot's letter (#4) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 04:05:08 PM EST
Reply
(#116) (Rated 5.00/5)
by Ocelot on 01/29/2004 03:32:59 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I just sent this letter to Sidney Blumental, c/o Salon.com. Sorry it's kind of long, but I was pretty steamed.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
Although I have long been a fan of yours, I was deeply dismayed and disappointed to read your recent opinion piece at Salon.com in which - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - you cavalierly dismiss General Wesley Clark as an "amateur" who has been essentially eliminated from contention in the primaries. Those of us - and there are many - who have been working diligently on General Clark's campaign have become rather accustomed to something of a media blackout. Somehow, it has been decided by you media pundits (though not by the voters, not by a long shot) that General Clark is not a serious contender. This has been decided even though his poll numbers remain solid, and despite the fact that even though the campaign in the southern states has just begun, he has an excellent chance of winning in many of those states. For some reason, though, the media coverage has ranged from dismissive to downright vicious, a fact that utterly baffles me.
Why have so many of you decided to try to marginalize the one candidate who probably has the best chance of prevailing against George Bush in the general election? Is it because your imaginations are so limited that you can't conceive of the possibility that an "amateur" - that is, someone who is not a career politician - could successfully run for president? Is it because the continued success of your own careers depends upon access to established Washington hacks like Kerry and Edwards? Are all of you just too lazy to do your own independent evaluations of a candidate and his campaign instead of just repeating what all of the other pundits have just said, in an endless chorus of "me, too; me, too"? I have no doubt that some commentators simply want another four years of Bush; their agenda is obvious. But you? I just don't get it. The motive escapes me.
First, you write: "Clark insisted on being drafted to run by a committee that had been created for that purpose." Clark didn't "insist" upon being drafted. He was, in fact, rather reluctant to give up his new career in business. For the very first time in his life he was becoming financially successful. He had no real reason to want to run for president, but over 50,000 people pestered and argued and cajoled until he decided, once again, to pursue a path of public service - even though he had already spent 34 years of his life doing exactly that. For you to suggest that the draft movement was his idea is insulting and just plain wrong. For that accusation alone you owe him an apology.
You also write that "[t]he elements that Clark sought to assemble were held by others: Kerry owned electability; Edwards, Southern identity; and Dean, the Washington outsider. A man of parts, Clark was left in pieces." Parts? In pieces? Excuse me? Clark has all of those qualities - electability, Southern identity and outsider status. None of the others has what Clark has. Kerry, notwithstanding his military background, is just an old-style Washington politician who during his career has managed to miss something like 60% of the votes in the Senate, including the recent vote on the Omnibus bill. Kerry was too busy campaigning in New Hampshire to try to stop the Republican majority from taking away workers' rights to overtime pay. Clark, in contrast, gave up four days of his campaign in order to testify against the war criminla Milosevic. And his electability is probably limited to the Northeast. To the rest of the country, especially the South, he will be shown to be another unelectable Northern liberal like Mondale and Dukakis. Edwards has Southern identity - period. He is glib and attractive, but has been a senator for only one term. He has no foreign policy credentials and precious little else. And Dean, the so-called "outsider," has spent most of the last few weeks currying favor with the insiders, like Al Gore. Moreover, despite all that sucking up, if anyone's campaign is in trouble clearly it's Dean's. Clark has all of these incomplete candidates' "electable" qualities - hardly a candidate in pieces.
You go on to accuse Clark of "attempting to pull rank" by dismissing Kerry "as a mere lieutenant." Did you actually hear that exchange? It's been spun by the lazy media into something it clearly was not. Bob Dole, long known for his nasty, snarky "wit," rudely and disrespectfully suggested to Clark that after Iowa, Kerry was now the general and he (Clark) was just a colonel. Dole, himself a veteran, clearly intended the insult. Clark (also hampered somewhat by evident difficulty in hearing clearly through his earpiece) was simply responding to the insulting metaphor Dol;e used to describe Kerry's recent political success, and not disprespecting Kerry's service. In fact, Clark has always been complimentary and respectful of that service.
And then you criticize him for failing to distance himself from Michael Moore's claim that Bush was a deserter. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that Moore is not a "self-promoting left-wing comedian," but has achieved some deserved attention as an effective and increasingly popular liberal polemicist at a time when left-wing polemicists are desperately needed to counter the lies and venom of the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The more important point is that Clark rightly refused to repudiate Moore's claim because he felt he had no right or obligation to try to censor the opinions of those who support him, and also lacked factual information sufficient for him to agree or disagree with Moore's allegations. Indeed, there are substantial facts suggesting that Moore may be correct.But it's the job of the news media - which, so far, has been pitifully lazy and ineffective in following up on this issue -- to get to the truth. I would add that since nobody has ever asked Bush to disavow the constant smears perpetrated by some of his supporters - such as Ann Coulter's insistence that all liberals and Democrats are traitors - why should Clark or any other candidate be held to any different standard? Clark did exactly what an honorable person should have done under the circumstances; he owes no explanation or apology to anyone. Had he repudiated Moore I would have been disappointed in him.
We have seen far too much of this kind of dismissive commentary about General Clark from the right wing, probably because a Clark candidacy really is Karl Rove's worst nightmare. But to see it coming from those on the left, as well, is beyond disappointing. I am not about to give up on this campaign because I, and many others, are absolutely certain that any chance of evicting George Bush from the White House will be lost, and the Democratic Party with it, if the nominee is anyone other than General Clark. I desperately hope that you and other liberal writers (I expect nothing from those on the right) will find your intellectual honesty again and write a truly fair evaluation of this most qualified candidate.
Thank you.
Link: (#3) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 03:05:28 PM EST
Parent | Reply
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/01/29/clark_lieberman/
Excellent letter. (#2) (No rating)
by snyttri on 01/29/2004 01:43:07 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Blumenthal owes you a response to your sound reasoning.
Great Letter Robbed (#1) (No rating)
by Sybil on 01/29/2004 01:38:58 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Is there a link to Blumenthal's statement? I haven't heard about this, what did he say?
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Call To Action) on Thu Jan 29th, 2004 at 01:00:13 AM EST
SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL
Subject: The "Lieutenant" slander of Clark
It breaks my heart to see someone like you whose opinion I trusted getting into this slander. Are you even aware that Kerry retracted his "outrage" Sunday morning on Face the Nation?
Here's what prompted the "scandalous" statement:
Larry King Show:
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
Clark never complained about this one:
MATTHEWS: There are two men in this campaign who are running who have military background. You've got a couple of stars, medals and so does General Clark. Compare you with him.
KERRY: Well I have great respect for General Clark, but he has been a military man all his life. He has been a general.
MATTHEWS: Is he a headquarters guy and you're a field guy?
KERRY: He has generally been. No, he was in the field at one point, but very little in his career. By and large General Clark has not had the breadth of experience in foreign policy and I think there's an enormous difference between us. I have spent 35 years-you know when I came back from Vietnam, I stood up and fought against the war. I've...
MATTHEWS: Well how did he get a Silver Star if he wasn't in action?
KERRY: I said he was. I said he had...
MATTHEWS: Right.
KERRY: ... one brief, I believe, tour in the field like that, and then he as a general. Look, I'm not disrespectful of General Clark, but there's a difference between us in the levels of our experience. There's also a difference in the values that we fought for through a lifetime. When General Clark was voting for Richard Nixon and voting for Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of them. When General Clark was in the military, I was standing up and fighting against Noriega, against the illegal war in Central America.
I have served on the Narcotics Terrorism Committee as chairman. I wrote a book about-called "The New War". I have been involved in opening the Philippines and getting rid of Marcos and bringing Cory Aquino to power. I personally negotiated in Cambodia in order to try to get the tribunals for.
http://msnbc.msn.com/?id=3053419
On Face the Nation Sunday , Kerry said they cleared up the misunderstanding and that the campaign should not be fought on this ground. Sounded gracious, but he thought nothing of letting the slur hang later on in the 60 minutes interview. Not very honorable.
Clark's last word on this:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/27/wbr.00.html
CLARK: Well, I think John Kerry did a fine job in Vietnam. I was there about the same time. I also was a junior officer in Vietnam. I was a company commander.
snip
BLITZER: Do you owe John Kerry a little bit of an apology for sort of that tone of what you said?
CLARK: I think that John Kerry and I have already had that discussion.
And it's very clear that -- my son was a lieutenant and I was a lieutenant. And no Democrat and no Republican will ever drive a wedge between me and our nation's veterans. It's just that simple.
I am surprised that someone like you, knowledgeable in the media bias and its destructive power is joining the pack. Check your facts.
Clark always talked respectfully of Kerry. Kerry on the other hand beamed as a veteran was repeating Shelton's smears about Clark. How can you endorse and perpetrate this?
I was admiring you so much after "Clinton Wars" - but now I am bitterly disappointed.
**
"Is America ready for another Rhodes scholar from Arkansas?
"I hope so. We make the best presidents!"
Letter to Sidney Blumenthal - Lieutenant slander | 4 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
Ocelot's letter (#4) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 04:05:08 PM EST
Reply
(#116) (Rated 5.00/5)
by Ocelot on 01/29/2004 03:32:59 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I just sent this letter to Sidney Blumental, c/o Salon.com. Sorry it's kind of long, but I was pretty steamed.
Dear Mr. Blumenthal:
Although I have long been a fan of yours, I was deeply dismayed and disappointed to read your recent opinion piece at Salon.com in which - in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary - you cavalierly dismiss General Wesley Clark as an "amateur" who has been essentially eliminated from contention in the primaries. Those of us - and there are many - who have been working diligently on General Clark's campaign have become rather accustomed to something of a media blackout. Somehow, it has been decided by you media pundits (though not by the voters, not by a long shot) that General Clark is not a serious contender. This has been decided even though his poll numbers remain solid, and despite the fact that even though the campaign in the southern states has just begun, he has an excellent chance of winning in many of those states. For some reason, though, the media coverage has ranged from dismissive to downright vicious, a fact that utterly baffles me.
Why have so many of you decided to try to marginalize the one candidate who probably has the best chance of prevailing against George Bush in the general election? Is it because your imaginations are so limited that you can't conceive of the possibility that an "amateur" - that is, someone who is not a career politician - could successfully run for president? Is it because the continued success of your own careers depends upon access to established Washington hacks like Kerry and Edwards? Are all of you just too lazy to do your own independent evaluations of a candidate and his campaign instead of just repeating what all of the other pundits have just said, in an endless chorus of "me, too; me, too"? I have no doubt that some commentators simply want another four years of Bush; their agenda is obvious. But you? I just don't get it. The motive escapes me.
First, you write: "Clark insisted on being drafted to run by a committee that had been created for that purpose." Clark didn't "insist" upon being drafted. He was, in fact, rather reluctant to give up his new career in business. For the very first time in his life he was becoming financially successful. He had no real reason to want to run for president, but over 50,000 people pestered and argued and cajoled until he decided, once again, to pursue a path of public service - even though he had already spent 34 years of his life doing exactly that. For you to suggest that the draft movement was his idea is insulting and just plain wrong. For that accusation alone you owe him an apology.
You also write that "[t]he elements that Clark sought to assemble were held by others: Kerry owned electability; Edwards, Southern identity; and Dean, the Washington outsider. A man of parts, Clark was left in pieces." Parts? In pieces? Excuse me? Clark has all of those qualities - electability, Southern identity and outsider status. None of the others has what Clark has. Kerry, notwithstanding his military background, is just an old-style Washington politician who during his career has managed to miss something like 60% of the votes in the Senate, including the recent vote on the Omnibus bill. Kerry was too busy campaigning in New Hampshire to try to stop the Republican majority from taking away workers' rights to overtime pay. Clark, in contrast, gave up four days of his campaign in order to testify against the war criminla Milosevic. And his electability is probably limited to the Northeast. To the rest of the country, especially the South, he will be shown to be another unelectable Northern liberal like Mondale and Dukakis. Edwards has Southern identity - period. He is glib and attractive, but has been a senator for only one term. He has no foreign policy credentials and precious little else. And Dean, the so-called "outsider," has spent most of the last few weeks currying favor with the insiders, like Al Gore. Moreover, despite all that sucking up, if anyone's campaign is in trouble clearly it's Dean's. Clark has all of these incomplete candidates' "electable" qualities - hardly a candidate in pieces.
You go on to accuse Clark of "attempting to pull rank" by dismissing Kerry "as a mere lieutenant." Did you actually hear that exchange? It's been spun by the lazy media into something it clearly was not. Bob Dole, long known for his nasty, snarky "wit," rudely and disrespectfully suggested to Clark that after Iowa, Kerry was now the general and he (Clark) was just a colonel. Dole, himself a veteran, clearly intended the insult. Clark (also hampered somewhat by evident difficulty in hearing clearly through his earpiece) was simply responding to the insulting metaphor Dol;e used to describe Kerry's recent political success, and not disprespecting Kerry's service. In fact, Clark has always been complimentary and respectful of that service.
And then you criticize him for failing to distance himself from Michael Moore's claim that Bush was a deserter. Let's leave aside for the moment the fact that Moore is not a "self-promoting left-wing comedian," but has achieved some deserved attention as an effective and increasingly popular liberal polemicist at a time when left-wing polemicists are desperately needed to counter the lies and venom of the likes of Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. The more important point is that Clark rightly refused to repudiate Moore's claim because he felt he had no right or obligation to try to censor the opinions of those who support him, and also lacked factual information sufficient for him to agree or disagree with Moore's allegations. Indeed, there are substantial facts suggesting that Moore may be correct.But it's the job of the news media - which, so far, has been pitifully lazy and ineffective in following up on this issue -- to get to the truth. I would add that since nobody has ever asked Bush to disavow the constant smears perpetrated by some of his supporters - such as Ann Coulter's insistence that all liberals and Democrats are traitors - why should Clark or any other candidate be held to any different standard? Clark did exactly what an honorable person should have done under the circumstances; he owes no explanation or apology to anyone. Had he repudiated Moore I would have been disappointed in him.
We have seen far too much of this kind of dismissive commentary about General Clark from the right wing, probably because a Clark candidacy really is Karl Rove's worst nightmare. But to see it coming from those on the left, as well, is beyond disappointing. I am not about to give up on this campaign because I, and many others, are absolutely certain that any chance of evicting George Bush from the White House will be lost, and the Democratic Party with it, if the nominee is anyone other than General Clark. I desperately hope that you and other liberal writers (I expect nothing from those on the right) will find your intellectual honesty again and write a truly fair evaluation of this most qualified candidate.
Thank you.
Link: (#3) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/29/2004 03:05:28 PM EST
Parent | Reply
http://www.salon.com/opinion/blumenthal/2004/01/29/clark_lieberman/
Excellent letter. (#2) (No rating)
by snyttri on 01/29/2004 01:43:07 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Blumenthal owes you a response to your sound reasoning.
Great Letter Robbed (#1) (No rating)
by Sybil on 01/29/2004 01:38:58 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Is there a link to Blumenthal's statement? I haven't heard about this, what did he say?
Sunday, January 25, 2004
*Kerry vs the middle class*
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Jan 25th, 2004 at 06:11:28 AM EST
In spite of having to mortgage his house to make up for the lack of finnancial support, Kerry is hardly needy.
In fact, he is obscenely wealthy:
Annual Net Income: $15,550,935 - $77,540,000
Net Worth: $198,794,683 - $839,038,000
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=pfin
Why is this relevant?
Because this wealth seems to inform Kerry's attitude towards the little people.
Kerry vs minimum wage
A few months later, with President Bill Clinton locked in combat with the Republicans, Mr. Kerry voiced some doubts in a closed-door meeting of senators about the wisdom of trying to raise the minimum wage. And as Mr. Kennedy later recalled, he told Mr. Kerry, "If you're not for raising the minimum wage, you don't deserve to call yourself a Democrat."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/politics/campaign/25RECO.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Kerry vs overtime
Posted Sybil:
Checked c-span's congressional records. The ominous "Omnibus" Appropriations Bill was cloture was defeated by48 - 45
Senators not voting:
Joseph Lieberman (D)
Saxby Chambliss (R)
Daniel Inouye (D)
John Kerry (D)
Mark Dayton (D)
Max Baucus (D)
John Edwards (D)
What's wrong with this picture?
Wes took time off from the campaign to testify in the Netherlands trial of Milosevic.
BUT
Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards [son of a millworker], couldn't take a commuter back and forth from N.H. to D.C. to vote on behalf of the people they are so eager to represent???
Note: Max baucus was having surgery at the time
Same people were absent from the final vote = where the margin was larger.
*Kerry vs tax cuts for the middle class
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A63270-2004Jan7&am p;notFound=true
He seems to be siding here with Wall Street Journal in their obscene editorial
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002937
The Non-Taxpaying Class
Those lucky duckies!
as well as Faux which attacked Clark's plan as excusing the middle class from any responsibility for the war. Clark responded that the middle class has been shouldering all responsibilities of the war, from financial to sending theis sons and daughters.
*Generals vs lieutenants
Kerry Responds To Clark
"That's the first time I have heard a general be so dismissive of lieutenants, who bleed a lot in wars"
John Kerry snapping back at Wesley Clark, on 60 Minutes
(CBS) Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry responded to a military rank-pulling comment aimed at him by rival Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark by calling Clark, a retired general, "dismissive of lieutenants."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/60minutes/main595431.shtml
Patrician Kerry is trying to portray himself as disparaged "son of a mill worker" militarily speaking capitalizing on a right wing attack.
Cunningly, CNN did not post the transcript of that Larry King Live but videotape exista and will be properly referenced here.
Bob Dole told Clark he would lose now in NH and that Kerry's win in Iowa made him a colonel and Kerry the General.
"With all due respect, I am still the General and Kerry is still the lieutenant" answered Clark to this banter."
When not paring Dole's attacks, Clark' has been nothing but complimentary of Kerry's record, in spite of non stop attacks.
So, Mr "at least I am not French" Kerry, your scepter and crown are intact. No need to get your nose out of joint. Being called a lieutenant when you are one is not exactly an offense, unless you feel you deserve better .
Kerry vs the middle class | 6 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
(#4) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/31/2004 05:49:34 AM EST
Reply
More vacations than people on welfare
http://www.commondreams.org/views/022300-103.htm
Senator John Kerry once joked on Imus about former governor William Weld, ''this guy takes more vacations than the people on welfare.''
Kerry's dismissal overlooked by media (#2) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 08:05:27 AM EST
Reply
(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)
by caroline62 on 01/25/2004 07:18:39 AM EST
Is it just me or has the press forgotten that Kerry was the first one to diminish Clark's military service.
Kerry said on an interview after a debate in September or October that Clark was only used to taking orders from higher-ups. I do believe there was a tart follow-up from the Clark campaign regarding Kerry's comments.
Now everyone wants to jump on Clark for calling Kerry a junior officer. Isn't that what Kerry was?
Dissmissive of lieutenants Clark: (#1) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 07:10:37 AM EST
Reply
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
Here's the link to the show's transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Jan 25th, 2004 at 06:11:28 AM EST
In spite of having to mortgage his house to make up for the lack of finnancial support, Kerry is hardly needy.
In fact, he is obscenely wealthy:
Annual Net Income: $15,550,935 - $77,540,000
Net Worth: $198,794,683 - $839,038,000
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=pfin
Why is this relevant?
Because this wealth seems to inform Kerry's attitude towards the little people.
Kerry vs minimum wage
A few months later, with President Bill Clinton locked in combat with the Republicans, Mr. Kerry voiced some doubts in a closed-door meeting of senators about the wisdom of trying to raise the minimum wage. And as Mr. Kennedy later recalled, he told Mr. Kerry, "If you're not for raising the minimum wage, you don't deserve to call yourself a Democrat."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/politics/campaign/25RECO.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Kerry vs overtime
Posted Sybil:
Checked c-span's congressional records. The ominous "Omnibus" Appropriations Bill was cloture was defeated by48 - 45
Senators not voting:
Joseph Lieberman (D)
Saxby Chambliss (R)
Daniel Inouye (D)
John Kerry (D)
Mark Dayton (D)
Max Baucus (D)
John Edwards (D)
What's wrong with this picture?
Wes took time off from the campaign to testify in the Netherlands trial of Milosevic.
BUT
Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards [son of a millworker], couldn't take a commuter back and forth from N.H. to D.C. to vote on behalf of the people they are so eager to represent???
Note: Max baucus was having surgery at the time
Same people were absent from the final vote = where the margin was larger.
*Kerry vs tax cuts for the middle class
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A63270-2004Jan7&am p;notFound=true
He seems to be siding here with Wall Street Journal in their obscene editorial
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002937
The Non-Taxpaying Class
Those lucky duckies!
as well as Faux which attacked Clark's plan as excusing the middle class from any responsibility for the war. Clark responded that the middle class has been shouldering all responsibilities of the war, from financial to sending theis sons and daughters.
*Generals vs lieutenants
Kerry Responds To Clark
"That's the first time I have heard a general be so dismissive of lieutenants, who bleed a lot in wars"
John Kerry snapping back at Wesley Clark, on 60 Minutes
(CBS) Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry responded to a military rank-pulling comment aimed at him by rival Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark by calling Clark, a retired general, "dismissive of lieutenants."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/60minutes/main595431.shtml
Patrician Kerry is trying to portray himself as disparaged "son of a mill worker" militarily speaking capitalizing on a right wing attack.
Cunningly, CNN did not post the transcript of that Larry King Live but videotape exista and will be properly referenced here.
Bob Dole told Clark he would lose now in NH and that Kerry's win in Iowa made him a colonel and Kerry the General.
"With all due respect, I am still the General and Kerry is still the lieutenant" answered Clark to this banter."
When not paring Dole's attacks, Clark' has been nothing but complimentary of Kerry's record, in spite of non stop attacks.
So, Mr "at least I am not French" Kerry, your scepter and crown are intact. No need to get your nose out of joint. Being called a lieutenant when you are one is not exactly an offense, unless you feel you deserve better .
Kerry vs the middle class | 6 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
(#4) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/31/2004 05:49:34 AM EST
Reply
More vacations than people on welfare
http://www.commondreams.org/views/022300-103.htm
Senator John Kerry once joked on Imus about former governor William Weld, ''this guy takes more vacations than the people on welfare.''
Kerry's dismissal overlooked by media (#2) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 08:05:27 AM EST
Reply
(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)
by caroline62 on 01/25/2004 07:18:39 AM EST
Is it just me or has the press forgotten that Kerry was the first one to diminish Clark's military service.
Kerry said on an interview after a debate in September or October that Clark was only used to taking orders from higher-ups. I do believe there was a tart follow-up from the Clark campaign regarding Kerry's comments.
Now everyone wants to jump on Clark for calling Kerry a junior officer. Isn't that what Kerry was?
Dissmissive of lieutenants Clark: (#1) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 07:10:37 AM EST
Reply
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
Here's the link to the show's transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
*Kerry vs the middle class*
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Jan 25th, 2004 at 06:11:28 AM EST
In spite of having to mortgage his house to make up for the lack of finnancial support, Kerry is hardly needy.
In fact, he is obscenely wealthy:
Annual Net Income: $15,550,935 - $77,540,000
Net Worth: $198,794,683 - $839,038,000
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=pfin
Why is this relevant?
Because this wealth seems to inform Kerry's attitude towards the little people.
Kerry vs minimum wage
A few months later, with President Bill Clinton locked in combat with the Republicans, Mr. Kerry voiced some doubts in a closed-door meeting of senators about the wisdom of trying to raise the minimum wage. And as Mr. Kennedy later recalled, he told Mr. Kerry, "If you're not for raising the minimum wage, you don't deserve to call yourself a Democrat."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/politics/campaign/25RECO.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Kerry vs overtime
Posted Sybil:
Checked c-span's congressional records. The ominous "Omnibus" Appropriations Bill was cloture was defeated by48 - 45
Senators not voting:
Joseph Lieberman (D)
Saxby Chambliss (R)
Daniel Inouye (D)
John Kerry (D)
Mark Dayton (D)
Max Baucus (D)
John Edwards (D)
What's wrong with this picture?
Wes took time off from the campaign to testify in the Netherlands trial of Milosevic.
BUT
Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards [son of a millworker], couldn't take a commuter back and forth from N.H. to D.C. to vote on behalf of the people they are so eager to represent???
Note: Max baucus was having surgery at the time
Same people were absent from the final vote = where the margin was larger.
*Kerry vs tax cuts for the middle class
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A63270-2004Jan7&am p;notFound=true
He seems to be siding here with Wall Street Journal in their obscene editorial
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002937
The Non-Taxpaying Class
Those lucky duckies!
as well as Faux which attacked Clark's plan as excusing the middle class from any responsibility for the war. Clark responded that the middle class has been shouldering all responsibilities of the war, from financial to sending theis sons and daughters.
*Generals vs lieutenants
Kerry Responds To Clark
"That's the first time I have heard a general be so dismissive of lieutenants, who bleed a lot in wars"
John Kerry snapping back at Wesley Clark, on 60 Minutes
(CBS) Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry responded to a military rank-pulling comment aimed at him by rival Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark by calling Clark, a retired general, "dismissive of lieutenants."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/60minutes/main595431.shtml
Patrician Kerry is trying to portray himself as disparaged "son of a mill worker" militarily speaking capitalizing on a right wing attack.
Cunningly, CNN did not post the transcript of that Larry King Live but videotape exista and will be properly referenced here.
Bob Dole told Clark he would lose now in NH and that Kerry's win in Iowa made him a colonel and Kerry the General.
"With all due respect, I am still the General and Kerry is still the lieutenant" answered Clark to this banter."
When not paring Dole's attacks, Clark' has been nothing but complimentary of Kerry's record, in spite of non stop attacks.
So, Mr "at least I am not French" Kerry, your scepter and crown are intact. No need to get your nose out of joint. Being called a lieutenant when you are one is not exactly an offense, unless you feel you deserve better .
Kerry vs the middle class | 6 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
(#4) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/31/2004 05:49:34 AM EST
Reply
More vacations than people on welfare
http://www.commondreams.org/views/022300-103.htm
Senator John Kerry once joked on Imus about former governor William Weld, ''this guy takes more vacations than the people on welfare.''
Kerry's dismissal overlooked by media (#2) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 08:05:27 AM EST
Reply
(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)
by caroline62 on 01/25/2004 07:18:39 AM EST
Is it just me or has the press forgotten that Kerry was the first one to diminish Clark's military service.
Kerry said on an interview after a debate in September or October that Clark was only used to taking orders from higher-ups. I do believe there was a tart follow-up from the Clark campaign regarding Kerry's comments.
Now everyone wants to jump on Clark for calling Kerry a junior officer. Isn't that what Kerry was?
Dissmissive of lieutenants Clark: (#1) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 07:10:37 AM EST
Reply
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
Here's the link to the show's transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Jan 25th, 2004 at 06:11:28 AM EST
In spite of having to mortgage his house to make up for the lack of finnancial support, Kerry is hardly needy.
In fact, he is obscenely wealthy:
Annual Net Income: $15,550,935 - $77,540,000
Net Worth: $198,794,683 - $839,038,000
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/candidate.aspx?cid=4&act=pfin
Why is this relevant?
Because this wealth seems to inform Kerry's attitude towards the little people.
Kerry vs minimum wage
A few months later, with President Bill Clinton locked in combat with the Republicans, Mr. Kerry voiced some doubts in a closed-door meeting of senators about the wisdom of trying to raise the minimum wage. And as Mr. Kennedy later recalled, he told Mr. Kerry, "If you're not for raising the minimum wage, you don't deserve to call yourself a Democrat."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/25/politics/campaign/25RECO.html?pagewanted=1&hp
Kerry vs overtime
Posted Sybil:
Checked c-span's congressional records. The ominous "Omnibus" Appropriations Bill was cloture was defeated by48 - 45
Senators not voting:
Joseph Lieberman (D)
Saxby Chambliss (R)
Daniel Inouye (D)
John Kerry (D)
Mark Dayton (D)
Max Baucus (D)
John Edwards (D)
What's wrong with this picture?
Wes took time off from the campaign to testify in the Netherlands trial of Milosevic.
BUT
Kerry, Lieberman and Edwards [son of a millworker], couldn't take a commuter back and forth from N.H. to D.C. to vote on behalf of the people they are so eager to represent???
Note: Max baucus was having surgery at the time
Same people were absent from the final vote = where the margin was larger.
*Kerry vs tax cuts for the middle class
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A63270-2004Jan7&am p;notFound=true
He seems to be siding here with Wall Street Journal in their obscene editorial
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110002937
The Non-Taxpaying Class
Those lucky duckies!
as well as Faux which attacked Clark's plan as excusing the middle class from any responsibility for the war. Clark responded that the middle class has been shouldering all responsibilities of the war, from financial to sending theis sons and daughters.
*Generals vs lieutenants
Kerry Responds To Clark
"That's the first time I have heard a general be so dismissive of lieutenants, who bleed a lot in wars"
John Kerry snapping back at Wesley Clark, on 60 Minutes
(CBS) Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry responded to a military rank-pulling comment aimed at him by rival Democratic presidential contender Wesley Clark by calling Clark, a retired general, "dismissive of lieutenants."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/23/60minutes/main595431.shtml
Patrician Kerry is trying to portray himself as disparaged "son of a mill worker" militarily speaking capitalizing on a right wing attack.
Cunningly, CNN did not post the transcript of that Larry King Live but videotape exista and will be properly referenced here.
Bob Dole told Clark he would lose now in NH and that Kerry's win in Iowa made him a colonel and Kerry the General.
"With all due respect, I am still the General and Kerry is still the lieutenant" answered Clark to this banter."
When not paring Dole's attacks, Clark' has been nothing but complimentary of Kerry's record, in spite of non stop attacks.
So, Mr "at least I am not French" Kerry, your scepter and crown are intact. No need to get your nose out of joint. Being called a lieutenant when you are one is not exactly an offense, unless you feel you deserve better .
Kerry vs the middle class | 6 comments | Group threads together | Post A Comment | Edit Story
(#4) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/31/2004 05:49:34 AM EST
Reply
More vacations than people on welfare
http://www.commondreams.org/views/022300-103.htm
Senator John Kerry once joked on Imus about former governor William Weld, ''this guy takes more vacations than the people on welfare.''
Kerry's dismissal overlooked by media (#2) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 08:05:27 AM EST
Reply
(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)
by caroline62 on 01/25/2004 07:18:39 AM EST
Is it just me or has the press forgotten that Kerry was the first one to diminish Clark's military service.
Kerry said on an interview after a debate in September or October that Clark was only used to taking orders from higher-ups. I do believe there was a tart follow-up from the Clark campaign regarding Kerry's comments.
Now everyone wants to jump on Clark for calling Kerry a junior officer. Isn't that what Kerry was?
Dissmissive of lieutenants Clark: (#1) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/25/2004 07:10:37 AM EST
Reply
KING: General Clark, we have another veteran with us tonight, Senator Robert Dole. You may know Senator Dole.
CLARK: Hello, Senator.
KING: Bob, do you have a question for the General?
DOLE: No, I think, you know, it's a tough -- you indicated it's a tough business you're in. Looking at it from my perspective, it seemed to me that John Kerry is a big winner tonight, not just in Iowa but also New Hampshire. I know you can't worry about Kerry's campaign but just as an observer I think he's going to benefit a great deal in New Hampshire. Somebody has to lose. Now, of course, you don't want it to be you but I think it may be you.
CLARK: Senator, let's be honest about this thing. The American people want a change in leadership. They're looking for a candidate that can lead on all of the issues. I'm the only person in this race who has ever done foreign policy and I know all of the domestic issues, too. It's one thing to talk about it, but if you think of foreign policy it's like major league baseball. I'm the only person who has ever played it and I pitch a 95 mile an hour fastball. I've negotiated peace agreements, I've won a war. I'm prepared to help the country that's why I'm running. I'm not worried about John Kerry or anybody else.
DOLE: We're not -- we're discussing here as friends but I think just politically you just became a colonel instead of a general...
CLARK: Well, I don't think that's at all -- Senator, with all due respect, he's a lieutenant and I'm a general. You got to get your facts on this. He was a lieutenant in Vietnam. I've done all of the big leadership. I respect John Kerry and I like him but what I'm going to say it's up to the voters of New Hampshire, South Carolina, New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma, all across this country, and that's what democracy is about. It's your job to handicap the race. It's my job to go out here and do the best thing I can do for the United States of America and that's what I'm going to do.
Here's the link to the show's transcript:
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/19/lkl.00.html
Clark or Kerry? War or peace? Story score: · Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Jan 25th, 2004 at 06:50:08 AM EST
I won't go here in the perplexing reasons that made Kerry oppose the Gulf war but approve the second Iraq war - predicated on the same reasons as the first. Others have done it and will continue.
What worries me is the preemption doctrine no one asks him about. It woried Clark enough to speak to Congress against it in September 2002 http://www.videos4clark.com/vidclips/15.wmv and address his fellow candidates in the first debate:
Clark:And just to pick up on what John Kerry said, this administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.
Now, there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now. But I'd like to ask all those who are -- let's see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9& ; ;notFound=true
This is how Clark explains it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3983123/ But Clark, the West Point debate team captain, insists on responding to those attacks by teaching something of a college short-course on the difference between "pre -emptive" and "preventative" war. On the campaign bus, he tried it again and landed on a slightly better definition of why Bush's war was a preventative war and why it was dangerous. He urged common sense by evoking the Vietnam-era talk of destroying a village in order to save it. "The whole idea that we should have a war now so we don't have to fight one later has always struck a lot of people as really bad," he said. "It's a case of logic overriding common sense."
Kerry however, had a speech after last year yellow cake SOTU in which he said: "Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats, both immediate and longer term against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations." http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722
Any president - this is as good as a promise that president Kerry will follow Bush's romp through the world
.
And, to follow his words with action, Kerry sponsored the Syria accountability act. He writes a constituent:
"I cosponsored the Syria Accountability Act to hold Syria responsible for its support for terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and possible pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576
So, the choice really is between someone who pledged not to take us into war unless it is ABSOLUTELY the last resort and someone who not only cheered the present policy but initiated the next war by cosponsoring legislation.
War or peace?
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Jan 25th, 2004 at 06:50:08 AM EST
I won't go here in the perplexing reasons that made Kerry oppose the Gulf war but approve the second Iraq war - predicated on the same reasons as the first. Others have done it and will continue.
What worries me is the preemption doctrine no one asks him about. It woried Clark enough to speak to Congress against it in September 2002 http://www.videos4clark.com/vidclips/15.wmv and address his fellow candidates in the first debate:
Clark:And just to pick up on what John Kerry said, this administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.
Now, there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now. But I'd like to ask all those who are -- let's see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9& ; ;notFound=true
This is how Clark explains it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3983123/ But Clark, the West Point debate team captain, insists on responding to those attacks by teaching something of a college short-course on the difference between "pre -emptive" and "preventative" war. On the campaign bus, he tried it again and landed on a slightly better definition of why Bush's war was a preventative war and why it was dangerous. He urged common sense by evoking the Vietnam-era talk of destroying a village in order to save it. "The whole idea that we should have a war now so we don't have to fight one later has always struck a lot of people as really bad," he said. "It's a case of logic overriding common sense."
Kerry however, had a speech after last year yellow cake SOTU in which he said: "Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats, both immediate and longer term against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations." http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722
Any president - this is as good as a promise that president Kerry will follow Bush's romp through the world
.
And, to follow his words with action, Kerry sponsored the Syria accountability act. He writes a constituent:
"I cosponsored the Syria Accountability Act to hold Syria responsible for its support for terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and possible pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576
So, the choice really is between someone who pledged not to take us into war unless it is ABSOLUTELY the last resort and someone who not only cheered the present policy but initiated the next war by cosponsoring legislation.
War or peace?
Clark or Kerry? War or peace? Story score: · Add to my Hotlist
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Jan 25th, 2004 at 06:50:08 AM EST
I won't go here in the perplexing reasons that made Kerry oppose the Gulf war but approve the second Iraq war - predicated on the same reasons as the first. Others have done it and will continue.
What worries me is the preemption doctrine no one asks him about. It woried Clark enough to speak to Congress against it in September 2002 http://www.videos4clark.com/vidclips/15.wmv and address his fellow candidates in the first debate:
Clark:And just to pick up on what John Kerry said, this administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.
Now, there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now. But I'd like to ask all those who are -- let's see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9& ; ;notFound=true
This is how Clark explains it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3983123/ But Clark, the West Point debate team captain, insists on responding to those attacks by teaching something of a college short-course on the difference between "pre -emptive" and "preventative" war. On the campaign bus, he tried it again and landed on a slightly better definition of why Bush's war was a preventative war and why it was dangerous. He urged common sense by evoking the Vietnam-era talk of destroying a village in order to save it. "The whole idea that we should have a war now so we don't have to fight one later has always struck a lot of people as really bad," he said. "It's a case of logic overriding common sense."
Kerry however, had a speech after last year yellow cake SOTU in which he said: "Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats, both immediate and longer term against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations." http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722
Any president - this is as good as a promise that president Kerry will follow Bush's romp through the world
.
And, to follow his words with action, Kerry sponsored the Syria accountability act. He writes a constituent:
"I cosponsored the Syria Accountability Act to hold Syria responsible for its support for terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and possible pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576
So, the choice really is between someone who pledged not to take us into war unless it is ABSOLUTELY the last resort and someone who not only cheered the present policy but initiated the next war by cosponsoring legislation.
War or peace?
By Robbedvoter [Add to my Buddy List]
Posted to Robbedvoter's weblog (Soapbox) on Sun Jan 25th, 2004 at 06:50:08 AM EST
I won't go here in the perplexing reasons that made Kerry oppose the Gulf war but approve the second Iraq war - predicated on the same reasons as the first. Others have done it and will continue.
What worries me is the preemption doctrine no one asks him about. It woried Clark enough to speak to Congress against it in September 2002 http://www.videos4clark.com/vidclips/15.wmv and address his fellow candidates in the first debate:
Clark:And just to pick up on what John Kerry said, this administration's preemptive doctrine is causing North Korea and Iran to accelerate their nuclear weapons development.
Now, there are some of us who aren't in Washington right now. But I'd like to ask all those who are -- let's see some leadership in the United States Congress. Let's see you take apart that doctrine of preemption now. I don't think we can wait until November of 2004 to change the administration on this threat. We're marching into another military campaign in the Middle East. We need to stop it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A5841-2003Oct9& ; ;notFound=true
This is how Clark explains it:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3983123/ But Clark, the West Point debate team captain, insists on responding to those attacks by teaching something of a college short-course on the difference between "pre -emptive" and "preventative" war. On the campaign bus, he tried it again and landed on a slightly better definition of why Bush's war was a preventative war and why it was dangerous. He urged common sense by evoking the Vietnam-era talk of destroying a village in order to save it. "The whole idea that we should have a war now so we don't have to fight one later has always struck a lot of people as really bad," he said. "It's a case of logic overriding common sense."
Kerry however, had a speech after last year yellow cake SOTU in which he said: "Even having botched the diplomacy, it is the duty of any president, in the final analysis, to defend this nation and dispel the security threats, both immediate and longer term against it. Saddam Hussein has brought military action upon himself by refusing for 12 years to comply with the mandates of the United Nations." http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722
Any president - this is as good as a promise that president Kerry will follow Bush's romp through the world
.
And, to follow his words with action, Kerry sponsored the Syria accountability act. He writes a constituent:
"I cosponsored the Syria Accountability Act to hold Syria responsible for its support for terrorism, occupation of Lebanon, and possible pursuit of weapons of mass destruction. http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576
So, the choice really is between someone who pledged not to take us into war unless it is ABSOLUTELY the last resort and someone who not only cheered the present policy but initiated the next war by cosponsoring legislation.
War or peace?
Saturday, January 24, 2004
Dear John
Part Two
(#52)
by py on 01/24/2004 04:06:07 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Kerry's view of Clark's middle class tax cuts
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."
Kerry's Income and Wealth
Annual Net Income: $15,550,935 - $77,540,000
Net Worth: $198,794,683 - $839,038,000
Now, who's the Republican again, Senator Kerry?
(
(#50) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 02:12:21 PM EST
Reply
http://bmcw.forclark.com/story/2004/1/23/222022/594/
(#48) (No rating)
by py on 01/24/2004 12:23:27 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
There is a discussion on Democratic Underground here about the Drudge story that John Kerry criticized Bush as a deserter in 2000. However, many people posting there seem to believe that Drudge got the story wrong, confusing Massachusetts Senator John Kerry with Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey. If you are on Democratic Underground, please straighten them out. Actually, in 2000 both criticized Bush as a deserter as the AP reported at the time:
At Gore's Pittsburgh rally, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey used his introduction of Gore to accuse Bush of lying when he said he never disclosed the arrest in order to protect his young daughters. "Governor, you're covering your rear end. You were protecting yourself. You were concerned about what might happen to you," Kerrey said. "How dare you say that your character is superior to Vice President Gore."
The Nebraska senator and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, both wounded in Vietnam, contended it's also a matter of character that Bush avoided duty oversees by joining the Texas Air National Guard. No documents have been found to show he reported for duty as ordered in Alabama in 1972.
"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said Kerry.
What concerns me is not the accusation against Bush, which the facts support, but Kerry's defense of Bush this week on Crossfire, as Robbedvoter has discussed here.
(#47) (No rating)
Kerry's speech on preemtion
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 11:58:37 AM EST
Reply
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722
(#46) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 11:06:16 AM EST
Reply
Kerry, Lieberman skip final Medicare vote to return to campaign trail
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20031125-1356-democrats-medicare.html
By Sam Hananel
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:56 p.m. November 25, 2003
WASHINGTON - The only two senators to miss the final vote on landmark Medicare legislation were Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who returned to the campaign trail Tuesday.
"
"There was no question about the passage," said Kerry, who was stumping in Iowa on Tuesday. "The vote was not going to make a difference in the outcome."
I wonder what the excuse is for the Omnibus bill then.
(#45) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 10:36:35 AM EST
Reply
Kerry's conundrum
Pro-gay in just about every other way, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry says he just won't support same-sex marriage
By Chris Bull
snip
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/898/898_kerry.asp
What exactly is your argument?
Kerry:My argument is that marriage is a union between men and women as defined through centuries. End of argument. Period. I don't make procreation or any other argument about it. It's just the way I've seen the issue.
Advocate: When you say it's "the way I've seen the issue," it sounds like you might be open to changing your position.
Kerry: Will I come to a different view sometime down the road? Who knows?
(#44) (No rating)
by roseba (divina1@hotmail.com) on 01/24/2004 10:29:09 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I have expressed my doubts about Kerry here:
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/23/134438/097
It's a bit harsh.
(#42) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 07:21:35 AM EST
Reply
Sybil's research is here:
http://sybil.forclark.com/story/2004/1/11/21437/8099
(#41) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 07:17:29 AM EST
Reply
The smear campaign
TNR has copies of the smear sheets Kerry is using
in NH if any of you want to look. Truly disgusting.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal
(#40) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 06:22:05 AM EST
Reply
Kerry in 2000
Senator plays role of Gore loyalist, Boston Globe, November 6 2000
.
"[Senator John] Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran of Vietnam, said Bush
should be scrutinized because he ends every speech by raising his
hand, taking a mock oath of office, and pledging to restore honor and
integrity to the White House. ''How is it that someone who's
supposedly serving on active duty, having supposedly taken that oath,
can miss a whole year of service without explaining where it went?''
Kerry asked the crowd."
Crossfire,Jan 23, 2000:
NOVAK: Senator Kerry, at last night's debate, General Clark was asked about a statement made in his presence by Michael Moore that President Bush is a -- was a deserter.
In the absence -- and General Clark said he didn't know anything about that, but he didn't know one way or the other.
KERRY: Yes.
NOVAK: In the absence of any -- any allegations to that effect, what do you think of calling the president of the United States a deserter? Or do you have some information that that is accurate?
KERRY: No, obviously, I don't. I think it's over-the-top language, Bob. And I think that's not what my campaign is about
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/23/cf.00.html.
So, John, were you speaking without knowing in 2000, or you forgotten since? And is this how you intend to confront W and the Rove machine?
(#38) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 10:02:13 AM EST
Reply
0401230445212">http://www.democracynow.orgarticle.pl?sid"red">0401230445212
AMY GOODMAN: But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any other candidate. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University. It's called "Skull and Bones." This fact has not been widely reported, but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, quote, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry.
(#37) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 06:46:40 AM EST
Reply
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4332464.html
Kerry, the winner of the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, has accepted money from two figures who later were prosecuted for election violations. He also has received substantial donations from telecommunications, media and steel companies overseen by committees on which he sits.
(#36) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 06:18:37 PM EST
Reply
Kerry justifying the Syria accountability act
http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576
(#35) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 07:25:24 AM EST
Reply
Last night, at a NH townhall, Clark was introduced by a veteran who drew a comparison to kerry in his speech. Nothing vicious, just facts. In the end, Clark distanced himself from the comments, saying that he likes Kerry. People appreciated it ans told him so.
Mr Robbedvoter was impressed since 2 days ago, in Iowa, kerry was smiling over another vet spouting Shelton smears about Clark - who wasn't even competing there. No distancing - and Mr Robevoter was disturbed by it then.
So, as to clarify: this blog is to collect facts only. I have no intent to attack or smear - simply to effective respond to attacks which I know are forthcoming.
Mr Kerry, you may still learn from Clark to campaign above the road. If you do, this stuff stays here. if you don't, it travels. I am not a statesman. I am just a Clark supporter, a free agent, a big mouthed new Yorker. That means, I will defend him from smears. So it;s up to you, John.
(#34) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 06:39:56 AM EST
Reply
Dissing the coup 2000 again
by katusha (katush@email.com) on 01/22/2004 05:43:01 AM EST
just saw kerry answering about how being a southerner helps in the pres. race and kerry said "if where you were from mattered then Al Gore would be president today"
Sen Kerry Al Gore IS the president today!!
just another example of how you roll over for the right wing when it matters. maybe you used to fight nixon and the establishment but that was before you became the establishment.
(#33) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 03:54:41 PM EST
Reply
I want a 2004 candidate who lets the world see what Al Gore would be like if he were a Yankee.
I want a Democratic nominee who, like Bush, eschews federal matching funds for his political campaign -- but only after blaming rival Howard Dean for dropping out of the matching-fund system first.
I want Kerry to win the nod so that he can raise enough money to pay off the loan and the mortgage he took out on his Boston home after he said no to matching funds.
And then I want to hear Kerry denounce the pernicious influence of big- money special interests.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/18/EDGLQ4APBC1.DTL
(#32) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 12:39:43 PM EST
Reply
* Waffling on Iraq:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml
Kerry has the tough job of wooing Howard Dean's anti-war Democrats despite his support of the war in Iraq. His favorite tactic, claiming the president outfoxed him, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
On "Meet the Press" in late August, Tim Russert played a tape of Kerry addressing the Senate in October 2002 with a hard-line speech declaring Iraq "capable of quickly producing weaponizing" of biological weapons that could be delivered against "the United States itself."
Kerry insisted: "That is exactly the point I'm making. We were given this information by our intelligence community."
However, as columnist Robert Novak noted, "as a senator, Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical of Iraqi capability. Being tricky may no longer be as effective politically as it once was."
No doubt Dean, Lieberman, Clark and other rivals will now use these and other details to do to Kerry what the Democrats did to Dean.
(#31) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 07:58:11 AM EST
Reply
(#195) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Marla on 01/21/2004 07:41:57 AM EST
This was posted last night by someone else, but it is worth repeating......little Rock take note.
" My wife and I were in Washington DC last April. We watched many sessions of congress at a time Bush was making war. John Kerry was silent. As a senior Democrat, John Kerry failed to provide sound leadership at one of the most crucial times in American History. Many did have the guts to speak out, John Kerry was not one of them."
(#30) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 02:26:29 PM EST
For Immediate Release
Date: December 3, 2003
Clark Campaign Response to Senator Kerry's Fondness for James Baker
http://clark04.com/press/release/103/
Clark Campaign Communications Director Matt Bennett issued the following statement in response to Senator Kerry's comments today at the Council on Foreign Relations:
"Senator Kerry's suggestion that he might use Bush family consigliere James Baker as a special envoy to the Middle East is offensive. Baker, who was the driving force behind George W. Bush's theft of the 2000 election in the Florida recount, helped to disenfranchise thousands of voters.
We liked it better when Senator Kerry was calling Baker's Florida operation 'thuggism.' If Kerry wants a former Secretary of State who headed a recount effort in Florida, let's stay away from political thugs and go with Warren Christopher."
(#27) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:15:22 AM EST
Parent | Reply
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/22/221958/58
I wander was that Syrian accountability act in place by October 2003 when Clark asked Kerry to dismantle the preemption doctrine because W will attack more countries? Do you know? We need more on this.
(#26) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:09:53 AM EST
Reply
http://markusd.forclark.com/story/2004/1/19/123431/541
(#25) (Rated 5.00/1)
by JasonFromWaltham (jasondavis@massforclark.com) on 01/20/2004 01:03:34 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Don't forget authoring the Syria accountability act giving bush the power to take beligerant actions vs Syria. (quietly passed through congress in the fall... sshhhh... I am a constiuent.... I am not supposed to know his real record.)
(#24) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 05:54:47 PM EST
Reply
by julianyc (julianyc at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 05:09:04 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
As for Kerry's comments on Clark being a lobbyist
This is from the Center for Public Integrity's site.
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=4
Kerry's campaign has criticized General Clark for his brief stint as a lobbyist. Seems that Kerry was pretty close to a lobbyist himself for a telecom firm that gave him a LOT of money -- maybe he should have registered as a lobbyist as General Clark did -- but Clark wasn't in the US Senate at the time!
Kerry Carries Water for Top Donor
By M. Asif Ismail
WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found. That analysis is part of the Center's research for The Buying of the President 2004 (to be published by HarperCollins), which tracks the financial backers and interests of the major candidates for the White House.
Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor.
Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. has been the biggest financial backer of the Massachusetts Democrat's two decades-long political career in elected office, with its employees contributing nearly $187,000 to various Kerry races, including his current presidential campaign.
Kerry's ties to the firm go beyond campaign contributions. His brother Cameron F. Kerry is an attorney at the firm's Boston office, and David Leiter, who was the Senator's chief of staff for six years, is a lobbyist for ML Strategies LLC, a Mintz, Levin affiliate that provides consulting and lobbying services.
Mintz, Levin advertises communications law among its areas of expertise and lobbies on behalf of wireless industry clients such as AT&T Wireless Service, XO Communications Inc. and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. CTIA is the trade association of the wireless industry; its more than 320 members include carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers. CTIA-affiliated companies and their employees have contributed at least $152,000 to Kerry. The amount includes contributions made to his presidential campaign and his previous election efforts, his political action committees and the 527 group that Kerry formed. Verizon employees donated close to a third of that amount ($45,400).
Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have substantial holdings in telecommunications companies; between $17.6 million and $47.1 million of their combined fortune is held in companies with a stake in the industry, the Center's analysis of his financial disclosure form revealed. That falls in a range of roughly 7 percent to 11 percent of the couple's combined $165 million to $626 million in assets. Most of the fortune, and the stocks, belong to Heinz Kerry.
Some $3.9 million to $13.9 million of those holdings are in companies which are members of CTIA.
It goes on and on................
(#23) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:08:53 AM EST
Reply
http://john-in-houston.forclark.com/story/2004/1/19/103814/848
(#22) (No rating)
by John in Houston (John-in-Houston at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:03:43 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
There IS a need to explain to voters what the differences are between Clark and Kerry.
(#21) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 10:39:08 AM EST
Reply
[new] (#131) (No rating)
by John in Houston (John-in-Houston at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 10:34:55 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Where was Kerry?
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
If you compare Sen. Kerry's Senate speech in support of the war resolution with Gen. Clark's testimony before the Senate, several things jump out.
One point is that Clark makes important distinctions about the nature of the threat of Iraq which Kerry does not. Kerry focusses on Iraq as the threat, rather than a threat. Kerry speaks of the threat of bio-chem and nuclear WMD all on the same level, while Clark points out that we do not have evidence of an active nuclear program.
The big difference, however, is that Kerry insists on accountability and verification for Saddam...but not for Bush. The resolution had a hole in it a mile wide, and Bush drove right through it.
Clark agreed with Kerry that there must be diplomacy backed by force, that the U.S. must work through the U.N., that we had to act in concert with an international coalition, and that there should be a postwar plan, although Kerry only mentions reconstruction vaguely.
But Clark urged that before the President was authorized to use force, the President must come back to Congress and verify:
1. That ll diplomatic efforts had in fact failed
2. That an international coalition had in fact been formed
3. That a postwar reconstruction plan had been formed and was in place
(#20) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/18/2004 04:01:49 PM EST
Reply
http://ann.forclark.com/story/2004/1/15/13339/2911
Clark: Shaheen also backed Nixon
1/15/2004
Former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, the cochairwoman of Senator John F. Kerry's New Hampshire campaign, this week rapped retired Army General Wesley K. Clark over his Democratic credentials -- in particular, his votes for Republican presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. But the Clark campaign yesterday pointed out that Shaheen herself voted for Nixon in 1968. Shaheen revealed that fact to a Globe reporter in 1995, in a story about her political evolution. At the time, she told the Globe, she was concerned about disarray in the Democratic Party. Shaheen voted for George McGovern against Nixon in 1972 and got involved in New Hampshire Democratic politics shortly thereafter, according to the story. The Kerry campaign sniffed at the Shaheen-Clark comparison. "For 35 years, Jeanne Shaheen has been a leading Democrat in New Hampshire," said Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan. "Wes Clark has been a Democrat in New Hampshire for about 3 1/2 seconds." (Globe Staff)
(#18) (No rating)
by Anonymous on 01/15/2004 01:06:43 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Robbed - There is a lot of great stuff here. I would like to see you refurbish the material in the Comments here and add some further documentation of Kerry's stated positions and then reblog it all under a title like "Why not John Kerry?" in light of the tightening race in NH with Kerry coming from below (see the ARG NH poll for Jan 15). And also post some of these things to the GS blog, the way we hit on women's issues. We have been so geared toward anti-Dean argumentation, we need to sharpen our skills at anti-Kerry argumentation.With undecideds lurking let's make it easy for them to find all these goodies. Good work!!!
John in Houston
Kerry's sense of priorities
(#17) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:30:27 AM EST
Reply
MATTHEWS: Senator John Kerry joins us right now from the debate site.
Senator Kerry, I don`t know if you`ve heard--I`m sure you have. In addition to tonight`s debate, there`s big news out in the country tonight. That`s that the former secretary of the Treasury Paul O`Neill who was, I guess it`s fair to say, fired by the president, has some bad news for the country. He says the president`s people, including the president, decided from Inauguration Day that they were going to Iraq. What do you make of that? Is that intel, or is that rumor?
KERRY: Well, I think it--it ought to be examined. It`s an extraordinary statement. It`s an accusation that calls into question everything that the administration put in front of us, and I think it bears examination.
But, look, what`s important here tonight, Chris, is that when Howard Dean holds up that newspaper and talks about what`s happening, he`s avoiding the truth of his own statements, and he didn`t answer the question about what he said in October....
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3939628/
(#16) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:18:55 AM EST
Reply
:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4
>
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
>
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
>
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president: Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri.
(#15) (Rated 5.00/1)
Kerry loves preemption
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:16:30 AM EST
Reply
Senator Kerry issued the following statement
after the president's
(sic) speech last night:
"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is
the duty of any president,
in the final analysis, to defend this nation
and dispel the security
threats, both immediate and longer term,
against it. Saddam Hussein
has brought military action upon himself by
refusing for 12 years to
comply with the mandates of the United
Nations."
(#14) (No rating)
Nobody asked
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:14:00 AM EST
Reply
On Sunday's Meet The Press, host Tim Russert asked
both Joe Biden (D-DE) and John Kerry (D-MA) if they
had been asked to
sign a protest by
members of the House. Both said that they hadn't
been asked, but if they
had been, neither would
have signed. Kerry, in fact said, "I was struck
yesterday...I sort of was
taken aback...nobody
came to me and asked me to sign it. Had they, I
would've had the same
reaction as Joe did.
http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george010901.shtml
(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:12:44 AM EST
Reply
kerry said this on his floundering campaign:
"We got crowded out by the other events," he said. "Very simple.
Crowded out by first the Internet and Dean and the war, and then
crowded out by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then crowded out by the new
face on the block [Clark]. Now's the time for people to focus and say
who can be president."
(#12) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/14/2004 04:52:29 PM EST
Reply
Why did John Kerrry not vote on the recent Medicare bill?????
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&sessio n=1&vote=00459
Why did John Kerry tell the Florida Democratic Party convention that he voted against the medicare bill????
Address to Florida Democratic Party on December 6, 2003: "I voted against that medicare bill....." (21 minutes into his speech).
It is with a bit of irony that Kerry chose to lie to the Florida Democratic party about his voting against the medicare bill given what occurred there in the 2000 election. Yes, every vote does count --- even that of a Senator from Massachusetts. It does not matter that the bill was going to be passed with or without Senator Kerry's vote. How can Senator Kerry tell the people in this country that their vote does matter and that every single vote counts and that they should all get out there and participate in this thing we call democracy.
The people of Massachusetts elected him to stand up and be counted --- luckily for them they at least have someone like Sen. Kennedy who took the time to actually vote against the bill.
(#8) (Rated 5.00/3)
by texifornia (texifornia2@yahoo.com) on 01/12/2004 07:29:20 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Rebut to Kerry's "he's not a Democrat" nonsense:
Clark may have voted Republican in 1980, but Kerry has been voting Republican in the U.S. Senate for the last 18 years!
Rebut to Bush's "O'Neil was not privy to all the Iraq information". They like to say that O'Neil is not qualified to comment on National Security issues because he was, after all, the Treasury Secretary. What they forget to mention is that Paul O'Neil was a member of the National Security Council.
If the National Security Council did not have the information on Iraq, who the hell did??? Was the decision to invade Iraq not on the NSC's agenda? Why the hell not? Who was privy to the Iraq intelligence if not the NSC????
That should make 'em squirm.
Part Two
(#52)
by py on 01/24/2004 04:06:07 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Kerry's view of Clark's middle class tax cuts
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."
Kerry's Income and Wealth
Annual Net Income: $15,550,935 - $77,540,000
Net Worth: $198,794,683 - $839,038,000
Now, who's the Republican again, Senator Kerry?
(
(#50) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 02:12:21 PM EST
Reply
http://bmcw.forclark.com/story/2004/1/23/222022/594/
(#48) (No rating)
by py on 01/24/2004 12:23:27 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
There is a discussion on Democratic Underground here about the Drudge story that John Kerry criticized Bush as a deserter in 2000. However, many people posting there seem to believe that Drudge got the story wrong, confusing Massachusetts Senator John Kerry with Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey. If you are on Democratic Underground, please straighten them out. Actually, in 2000 both criticized Bush as a deserter as the AP reported at the time:
At Gore's Pittsburgh rally, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey used his introduction of Gore to accuse Bush of lying when he said he never disclosed the arrest in order to protect his young daughters. "Governor, you're covering your rear end. You were protecting yourself. You were concerned about what might happen to you," Kerrey said. "How dare you say that your character is superior to Vice President Gore."
The Nebraska senator and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, both wounded in Vietnam, contended it's also a matter of character that Bush avoided duty oversees by joining the Texas Air National Guard. No documents have been found to show he reported for duty as ordered in Alabama in 1972.
"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said Kerry.
What concerns me is not the accusation against Bush, which the facts support, but Kerry's defense of Bush this week on Crossfire, as Robbedvoter has discussed here.
(#47) (No rating)
Kerry's speech on preemtion
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 11:58:37 AM EST
Reply
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722
(#46) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 11:06:16 AM EST
Reply
Kerry, Lieberman skip final Medicare vote to return to campaign trail
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20031125-1356-democrats-medicare.html
By Sam Hananel
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:56 p.m. November 25, 2003
WASHINGTON - The only two senators to miss the final vote on landmark Medicare legislation were Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who returned to the campaign trail Tuesday.
"
"There was no question about the passage," said Kerry, who was stumping in Iowa on Tuesday. "The vote was not going to make a difference in the outcome."
I wonder what the excuse is for the Omnibus bill then.
(#45) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 10:36:35 AM EST
Reply
Kerry's conundrum
Pro-gay in just about every other way, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry says he just won't support same-sex marriage
By Chris Bull
snip
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/898/898_kerry.asp
What exactly is your argument?
Kerry:My argument is that marriage is a union between men and women as defined through centuries. End of argument. Period. I don't make procreation or any other argument about it. It's just the way I've seen the issue.
Advocate: When you say it's "the way I've seen the issue," it sounds like you might be open to changing your position.
Kerry: Will I come to a different view sometime down the road? Who knows?
(#44) (No rating)
by roseba (divina1@hotmail.com) on 01/24/2004 10:29:09 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I have expressed my doubts about Kerry here:
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/23/134438/097
It's a bit harsh.
(#42) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 07:21:35 AM EST
Reply
Sybil's research is here:
http://sybil.forclark.com/story/2004/1/11/21437/8099
(#41) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 07:17:29 AM EST
Reply
The smear campaign
TNR has copies of the smear sheets Kerry is using
in NH if any of you want to look. Truly disgusting.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal
(#40) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 06:22:05 AM EST
Reply
Kerry in 2000
Senator plays role of Gore loyalist, Boston Globe, November 6 2000
.
"[Senator John] Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran of Vietnam, said Bush
should be scrutinized because he ends every speech by raising his
hand, taking a mock oath of office, and pledging to restore honor and
integrity to the White House. ''How is it that someone who's
supposedly serving on active duty, having supposedly taken that oath,
can miss a whole year of service without explaining where it went?''
Kerry asked the crowd."
Crossfire,Jan 23, 2000:
NOVAK: Senator Kerry, at last night's debate, General Clark was asked about a statement made in his presence by Michael Moore that President Bush is a -- was a deserter.
In the absence -- and General Clark said he didn't know anything about that, but he didn't know one way or the other.
KERRY: Yes.
NOVAK: In the absence of any -- any allegations to that effect, what do you think of calling the president of the United States a deserter? Or do you have some information that that is accurate?
KERRY: No, obviously, I don't. I think it's over-the-top language, Bob. And I think that's not what my campaign is about
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/23/cf.00.html.
So, John, were you speaking without knowing in 2000, or you forgotten since? And is this how you intend to confront W and the Rove machine?
(#38) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 10:02:13 AM EST
Reply
0401230445212">http://www.democracynow.orgarticle.pl?sid"red">0401230445212
AMY GOODMAN: But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any other candidate. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University. It's called "Skull and Bones." This fact has not been widely reported, but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, quote, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry.
(#37) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 06:46:40 AM EST
Reply
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4332464.html
Kerry, the winner of the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, has accepted money from two figures who later were prosecuted for election violations. He also has received substantial donations from telecommunications, media and steel companies overseen by committees on which he sits.
(#36) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 06:18:37 PM EST
Reply
Kerry justifying the Syria accountability act
http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576
(#35) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 07:25:24 AM EST
Reply
Last night, at a NH townhall, Clark was introduced by a veteran who drew a comparison to kerry in his speech. Nothing vicious, just facts. In the end, Clark distanced himself from the comments, saying that he likes Kerry. People appreciated it ans told him so.
Mr Robbedvoter was impressed since 2 days ago, in Iowa, kerry was smiling over another vet spouting Shelton smears about Clark - who wasn't even competing there. No distancing - and Mr Robevoter was disturbed by it then.
So, as to clarify: this blog is to collect facts only. I have no intent to attack or smear - simply to effective respond to attacks which I know are forthcoming.
Mr Kerry, you may still learn from Clark to campaign above the road. If you do, this stuff stays here. if you don't, it travels. I am not a statesman. I am just a Clark supporter, a free agent, a big mouthed new Yorker. That means, I will defend him from smears. So it;s up to you, John.
(#34) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 06:39:56 AM EST
Reply
Dissing the coup 2000 again
by katusha (katush@email.com) on 01/22/2004 05:43:01 AM EST
just saw kerry answering about how being a southerner helps in the pres. race and kerry said "if where you were from mattered then Al Gore would be president today"
Sen Kerry Al Gore IS the president today!!
just another example of how you roll over for the right wing when it matters. maybe you used to fight nixon and the establishment but that was before you became the establishment.
(#33) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 03:54:41 PM EST
Reply
I want a 2004 candidate who lets the world see what Al Gore would be like if he were a Yankee.
I want a Democratic nominee who, like Bush, eschews federal matching funds for his political campaign -- but only after blaming rival Howard Dean for dropping out of the matching-fund system first.
I want Kerry to win the nod so that he can raise enough money to pay off the loan and the mortgage he took out on his Boston home after he said no to matching funds.
And then I want to hear Kerry denounce the pernicious influence of big- money special interests.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/18/EDGLQ4APBC1.DTL
(#32) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 12:39:43 PM EST
Reply
* Waffling on Iraq:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml
Kerry has the tough job of wooing Howard Dean's anti-war Democrats despite his support of the war in Iraq. His favorite tactic, claiming the president outfoxed him, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
On "Meet the Press" in late August, Tim Russert played a tape of Kerry addressing the Senate in October 2002 with a hard-line speech declaring Iraq "capable of quickly producing weaponizing" of biological weapons that could be delivered against "the United States itself."
Kerry insisted: "That is exactly the point I'm making. We were given this information by our intelligence community."
However, as columnist Robert Novak noted, "as a senator, Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical of Iraqi capability. Being tricky may no longer be as effective politically as it once was."
No doubt Dean, Lieberman, Clark and other rivals will now use these and other details to do to Kerry what the Democrats did to Dean.
(#31) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 07:58:11 AM EST
Reply
(#195) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Marla on 01/21/2004 07:41:57 AM EST
This was posted last night by someone else, but it is worth repeating......little Rock take note.
" My wife and I were in Washington DC last April. We watched many sessions of congress at a time Bush was making war. John Kerry was silent. As a senior Democrat, John Kerry failed to provide sound leadership at one of the most crucial times in American History. Many did have the guts to speak out, John Kerry was not one of them."
(#30) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 02:26:29 PM EST
For Immediate Release
Date: December 3, 2003
Clark Campaign Response to Senator Kerry's Fondness for James Baker
http://clark04.com/press/release/103/
Clark Campaign Communications Director Matt Bennett issued the following statement in response to Senator Kerry's comments today at the Council on Foreign Relations:
"Senator Kerry's suggestion that he might use Bush family consigliere James Baker as a special envoy to the Middle East is offensive. Baker, who was the driving force behind George W. Bush's theft of the 2000 election in the Florida recount, helped to disenfranchise thousands of voters.
We liked it better when Senator Kerry was calling Baker's Florida operation 'thuggism.' If Kerry wants a former Secretary of State who headed a recount effort in Florida, let's stay away from political thugs and go with Warren Christopher."
(#27) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:15:22 AM EST
Parent | Reply
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/22/221958/58
I wander was that Syrian accountability act in place by October 2003 when Clark asked Kerry to dismantle the preemption doctrine because W will attack more countries? Do you know? We need more on this.
(#26) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:09:53 AM EST
Reply
http://markusd.forclark.com/story/2004/1/19/123431/541
(#25) (Rated 5.00/1)
by JasonFromWaltham (jasondavis@massforclark.com) on 01/20/2004 01:03:34 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Don't forget authoring the Syria accountability act giving bush the power to take beligerant actions vs Syria. (quietly passed through congress in the fall... sshhhh... I am a constiuent.... I am not supposed to know his real record.)
(#24) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 05:54:47 PM EST
Reply
by julianyc (julianyc at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 05:09:04 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
As for Kerry's comments on Clark being a lobbyist
This is from the Center for Public Integrity's site.
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=4
Kerry's campaign has criticized General Clark for his brief stint as a lobbyist. Seems that Kerry was pretty close to a lobbyist himself for a telecom firm that gave him a LOT of money -- maybe he should have registered as a lobbyist as General Clark did -- but Clark wasn't in the US Senate at the time!
Kerry Carries Water for Top Donor
By M. Asif Ismail
WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found. That analysis is part of the Center's research for The Buying of the President 2004 (to be published by HarperCollins), which tracks the financial backers and interests of the major candidates for the White House.
Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor.
Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. has been the biggest financial backer of the Massachusetts Democrat's two decades-long political career in elected office, with its employees contributing nearly $187,000 to various Kerry races, including his current presidential campaign.
Kerry's ties to the firm go beyond campaign contributions. His brother Cameron F. Kerry is an attorney at the firm's Boston office, and David Leiter, who was the Senator's chief of staff for six years, is a lobbyist for ML Strategies LLC, a Mintz, Levin affiliate that provides consulting and lobbying services.
Mintz, Levin advertises communications law among its areas of expertise and lobbies on behalf of wireless industry clients such as AT&T Wireless Service, XO Communications Inc. and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. CTIA is the trade association of the wireless industry; its more than 320 members include carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers. CTIA-affiliated companies and their employees have contributed at least $152,000 to Kerry. The amount includes contributions made to his presidential campaign and his previous election efforts, his political action committees and the 527 group that Kerry formed. Verizon employees donated close to a third of that amount ($45,400).
Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have substantial holdings in telecommunications companies; between $17.6 million and $47.1 million of their combined fortune is held in companies with a stake in the industry, the Center's analysis of his financial disclosure form revealed. That falls in a range of roughly 7 percent to 11 percent of the couple's combined $165 million to $626 million in assets. Most of the fortune, and the stocks, belong to Heinz Kerry.
Some $3.9 million to $13.9 million of those holdings are in companies which are members of CTIA.
It goes on and on................
(#23) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:08:53 AM EST
Reply
http://john-in-houston.forclark.com/story/2004/1/19/103814/848
(#22) (No rating)
by John in Houston (John-in-Houston at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:03:43 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
There IS a need to explain to voters what the differences are between Clark and Kerry.
(#21) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 10:39:08 AM EST
Reply
[new] (#131) (No rating)
by John in Houston (John-in-Houston at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 10:34:55 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Where was Kerry?
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
If you compare Sen. Kerry's Senate speech in support of the war resolution with Gen. Clark's testimony before the Senate, several things jump out.
One point is that Clark makes important distinctions about the nature of the threat of Iraq which Kerry does not. Kerry focusses on Iraq as the threat, rather than a threat. Kerry speaks of the threat of bio-chem and nuclear WMD all on the same level, while Clark points out that we do not have evidence of an active nuclear program.
The big difference, however, is that Kerry insists on accountability and verification for Saddam...but not for Bush. The resolution had a hole in it a mile wide, and Bush drove right through it.
Clark agreed with Kerry that there must be diplomacy backed by force, that the U.S. must work through the U.N., that we had to act in concert with an international coalition, and that there should be a postwar plan, although Kerry only mentions reconstruction vaguely.
But Clark urged that before the President was authorized to use force, the President must come back to Congress and verify:
1. That ll diplomatic efforts had in fact failed
2. That an international coalition had in fact been formed
3. That a postwar reconstruction plan had been formed and was in place
(#20) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/18/2004 04:01:49 PM EST
Reply
http://ann.forclark.com/story/2004/1/15/13339/2911
Clark: Shaheen also backed Nixon
1/15/2004
Former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, the cochairwoman of Senator John F. Kerry's New Hampshire campaign, this week rapped retired Army General Wesley K. Clark over his Democratic credentials -- in particular, his votes for Republican presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. But the Clark campaign yesterday pointed out that Shaheen herself voted for Nixon in 1968. Shaheen revealed that fact to a Globe reporter in 1995, in a story about her political evolution. At the time, she told the Globe, she was concerned about disarray in the Democratic Party. Shaheen voted for George McGovern against Nixon in 1972 and got involved in New Hampshire Democratic politics shortly thereafter, according to the story. The Kerry campaign sniffed at the Shaheen-Clark comparison. "For 35 years, Jeanne Shaheen has been a leading Democrat in New Hampshire," said Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan. "Wes Clark has been a Democrat in New Hampshire for about 3 1/2 seconds." (Globe Staff)
(#18) (No rating)
by Anonymous on 01/15/2004 01:06:43 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Robbed - There is a lot of great stuff here. I would like to see you refurbish the material in the Comments here and add some further documentation of Kerry's stated positions and then reblog it all under a title like "Why not John Kerry?" in light of the tightening race in NH with Kerry coming from below (see the ARG NH poll for Jan 15). And also post some of these things to the GS blog, the way we hit on women's issues. We have been so geared toward anti-Dean argumentation, we need to sharpen our skills at anti-Kerry argumentation.With undecideds lurking let's make it easy for them to find all these goodies. Good work!!!
John in Houston
Kerry's sense of priorities
(#17) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:30:27 AM EST
Reply
MATTHEWS: Senator John Kerry joins us right now from the debate site.
Senator Kerry, I don`t know if you`ve heard--I`m sure you have. In addition to tonight`s debate, there`s big news out in the country tonight. That`s that the former secretary of the Treasury Paul O`Neill who was, I guess it`s fair to say, fired by the president, has some bad news for the country. He says the president`s people, including the president, decided from Inauguration Day that they were going to Iraq. What do you make of that? Is that intel, or is that rumor?
KERRY: Well, I think it--it ought to be examined. It`s an extraordinary statement. It`s an accusation that calls into question everything that the administration put in front of us, and I think it bears examination.
But, look, what`s important here tonight, Chris, is that when Howard Dean holds up that newspaper and talks about what`s happening, he`s avoiding the truth of his own statements, and he didn`t answer the question about what he said in October....
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3939628/
(#16) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:18:55 AM EST
Reply
:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4
>
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
>
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
>
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president: Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri.
(#15) (Rated 5.00/1)
Kerry loves preemption
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:16:30 AM EST
Reply
Senator Kerry issued the following statement
after the president's
(sic) speech last night:
"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is
the duty of any president,
in the final analysis, to defend this nation
and dispel the security
threats, both immediate and longer term,
against it. Saddam Hussein
has brought military action upon himself by
refusing for 12 years to
comply with the mandates of the United
Nations."
(#14) (No rating)
Nobody asked
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:14:00 AM EST
Reply
On Sunday's Meet The Press, host Tim Russert asked
both Joe Biden (D-DE) and John Kerry (D-MA) if they
had been asked to
sign a protest by
members of the House. Both said that they hadn't
been asked, but if they
had been, neither would
have signed. Kerry, in fact said, "I was struck
yesterday...I sort of was
taken aback...nobody
came to me and asked me to sign it. Had they, I
would've had the same
reaction as Joe did.
http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george010901.shtml
(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:12:44 AM EST
Reply
kerry said this on his floundering campaign:
"We got crowded out by the other events," he said. "Very simple.
Crowded out by first the Internet and Dean and the war, and then
crowded out by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then crowded out by the new
face on the block [Clark]. Now's the time for people to focus and say
who can be president."
(#12) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/14/2004 04:52:29 PM EST
Reply
Why did John Kerrry not vote on the recent Medicare bill?????
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&sessio n=1&vote=00459
Why did John Kerry tell the Florida Democratic Party convention that he voted against the medicare bill????
Address to Florida Democratic Party on December 6, 2003: "I voted against that medicare bill....." (21 minutes into his speech).
It is with a bit of irony that Kerry chose to lie to the Florida Democratic party about his voting against the medicare bill given what occurred there in the 2000 election. Yes, every vote does count --- even that of a Senator from Massachusetts. It does not matter that the bill was going to be passed with or without Senator Kerry's vote. How can Senator Kerry tell the people in this country that their vote does matter and that every single vote counts and that they should all get out there and participate in this thing we call democracy.
The people of Massachusetts elected him to stand up and be counted --- luckily for them they at least have someone like Sen. Kennedy who took the time to actually vote against the bill.
(#8) (Rated 5.00/3)
by texifornia (texifornia2@yahoo.com) on 01/12/2004 07:29:20 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Rebut to Kerry's "he's not a Democrat" nonsense:
Clark may have voted Republican in 1980, but Kerry has been voting Republican in the U.S. Senate for the last 18 years!
Rebut to Bush's "O'Neil was not privy to all the Iraq information". They like to say that O'Neil is not qualified to comment on National Security issues because he was, after all, the Treasury Secretary. What they forget to mention is that Paul O'Neil was a member of the National Security Council.
If the National Security Council did not have the information on Iraq, who the hell did??? Was the decision to invade Iraq not on the NSC's agenda? Why the hell not? Who was privy to the Iraq intelligence if not the NSC????
That should make 'em squirm.
Dear John
Part Two
(#52)
by py on 01/24/2004 04:06:07 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Kerry's view of Clark's middle class tax cuts
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."
Kerry's Income and Wealth
Annual Net Income: $15,550,935 - $77,540,000
Net Worth: $198,794,683 - $839,038,000
Now, who's the Republican again, Senator Kerry?
(
(#50) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 02:12:21 PM EST
Reply
http://bmcw.forclark.com/story/2004/1/23/222022/594/
(#48) (No rating)
by py on 01/24/2004 12:23:27 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
There is a discussion on Democratic Underground here about the Drudge story that John Kerry criticized Bush as a deserter in 2000. However, many people posting there seem to believe that Drudge got the story wrong, confusing Massachusetts Senator John Kerry with Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey. If you are on Democratic Underground, please straighten them out. Actually, in 2000 both criticized Bush as a deserter as the AP reported at the time:
At Gore's Pittsburgh rally, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey used his introduction of Gore to accuse Bush of lying when he said he never disclosed the arrest in order to protect his young daughters. "Governor, you're covering your rear end. You were protecting yourself. You were concerned about what might happen to you," Kerrey said. "How dare you say that your character is superior to Vice President Gore."
The Nebraska senator and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, both wounded in Vietnam, contended it's also a matter of character that Bush avoided duty oversees by joining the Texas Air National Guard. No documents have been found to show he reported for duty as ordered in Alabama in 1972.
"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said Kerry.
What concerns me is not the accusation against Bush, which the facts support, but Kerry's defense of Bush this week on Crossfire, as Robbedvoter has discussed here.
(#47) (No rating)
Kerry's speech on preemtion
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 11:58:37 AM EST
Reply
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722
(#46) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 11:06:16 AM EST
Reply
Kerry, Lieberman skip final Medicare vote to return to campaign trail
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20031125-1356-democrats-medicare.html
By Sam Hananel
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:56 p.m. November 25, 2003
WASHINGTON - The only two senators to miss the final vote on landmark Medicare legislation were Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who returned to the campaign trail Tuesday.
"
"There was no question about the passage," said Kerry, who was stumping in Iowa on Tuesday. "The vote was not going to make a difference in the outcome."
I wonder what the excuse is for the Omnibus bill then.
(#45) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 10:36:35 AM EST
Reply
Kerry's conundrum
Pro-gay in just about every other way, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry says he just won't support same-sex marriage
By Chris Bull
snip
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/898/898_kerry.asp
What exactly is your argument?
Kerry:My argument is that marriage is a union between men and women as defined through centuries. End of argument. Period. I don't make procreation or any other argument about it. It's just the way I've seen the issue.
Advocate: When you say it's "the way I've seen the issue," it sounds like you might be open to changing your position.
Kerry: Will I come to a different view sometime down the road? Who knows?
(#44) (No rating)
by roseba (divina1@hotmail.com) on 01/24/2004 10:29:09 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I have expressed my doubts about Kerry here:
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/23/134438/097
It's a bit harsh.
(#42) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 07:21:35 AM EST
Reply
Sybil's research is here:
http://sybil.forclark.com/story/2004/1/11/21437/8099
(#41) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 07:17:29 AM EST
Reply
The smear campaign
TNR has copies of the smear sheets Kerry is using
in NH if any of you want to look. Truly disgusting.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal
(#40) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 06:22:05 AM EST
Reply
Kerry in 2000
Senator plays role of Gore loyalist, Boston Globe, November 6 2000
.
"[Senator John] Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran of Vietnam, said Bush
should be scrutinized because he ends every speech by raising his
hand, taking a mock oath of office, and pledging to restore honor and
integrity to the White House. ''How is it that someone who's
supposedly serving on active duty, having supposedly taken that oath,
can miss a whole year of service without explaining where it went?''
Kerry asked the crowd."
Crossfire,Jan 23, 2000:
NOVAK: Senator Kerry, at last night's debate, General Clark was asked about a statement made in his presence by Michael Moore that President Bush is a -- was a deserter.
In the absence -- and General Clark said he didn't know anything about that, but he didn't know one way or the other.
KERRY: Yes.
NOVAK: In the absence of any -- any allegations to that effect, what do you think of calling the president of the United States a deserter? Or do you have some information that that is accurate?
KERRY: No, obviously, I don't. I think it's over-the-top language, Bob. And I think that's not what my campaign is about
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/23/cf.00.html.
So, John, were you speaking without knowing in 2000, or you forgotten since? And is this how you intend to confront W and the Rove machine?
(#38) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 10:02:13 AM EST
Reply
0401230445212">http://www.democracynow.orgarticle.pl?sid"red">0401230445212
AMY GOODMAN: But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any other candidate. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University. It's called "Skull and Bones." This fact has not been widely reported, but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, quote, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry.
(#37) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 06:46:40 AM EST
Reply
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4332464.html
Kerry, the winner of the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, has accepted money from two figures who later were prosecuted for election violations. He also has received substantial donations from telecommunications, media and steel companies overseen by committees on which he sits.
(#36) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 06:18:37 PM EST
Reply
Kerry justifying the Syria accountability act
http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576
(#35) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 07:25:24 AM EST
Reply
Last night, at a NH townhall, Clark was introduced by a veteran who drew a comparison to kerry in his speech. Nothing vicious, just facts. In the end, Clark distanced himself from the comments, saying that he likes Kerry. People appreciated it ans told him so.
Mr Robbedvoter was impressed since 2 days ago, in Iowa, kerry was smiling over another vet spouting Shelton smears about Clark - who wasn't even competing there. No distancing - and Mr Robevoter was disturbed by it then.
So, as to clarify: this blog is to collect facts only. I have no intent to attack or smear - simply to effective respond to attacks which I know are forthcoming.
Mr Kerry, you may still learn from Clark to campaign above the road. If you do, this stuff stays here. if you don't, it travels. I am not a statesman. I am just a Clark supporter, a free agent, a big mouthed new Yorker. That means, I will defend him from smears. So it;s up to you, John.
(#34) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 06:39:56 AM EST
Reply
Dissing the coup 2000 again
by katusha (katush@email.com) on 01/22/2004 05:43:01 AM EST
just saw kerry answering about how being a southerner helps in the pres. race and kerry said "if where you were from mattered then Al Gore would be president today"
Sen Kerry Al Gore IS the president today!!
just another example of how you roll over for the right wing when it matters. maybe you used to fight nixon and the establishment but that was before you became the establishment.
(#33) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 03:54:41 PM EST
Reply
I want a 2004 candidate who lets the world see what Al Gore would be like if he were a Yankee.
I want a Democratic nominee who, like Bush, eschews federal matching funds for his political campaign -- but only after blaming rival Howard Dean for dropping out of the matching-fund system first.
I want Kerry to win the nod so that he can raise enough money to pay off the loan and the mortgage he took out on his Boston home after he said no to matching funds.
And then I want to hear Kerry denounce the pernicious influence of big- money special interests.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/18/EDGLQ4APBC1.DTL
(#32) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 12:39:43 PM EST
Reply
* Waffling on Iraq:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml
Kerry has the tough job of wooing Howard Dean's anti-war Democrats despite his support of the war in Iraq. His favorite tactic, claiming the president outfoxed him, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
On "Meet the Press" in late August, Tim Russert played a tape of Kerry addressing the Senate in October 2002 with a hard-line speech declaring Iraq "capable of quickly producing weaponizing" of biological weapons that could be delivered against "the United States itself."
Kerry insisted: "That is exactly the point I'm making. We were given this information by our intelligence community."
However, as columnist Robert Novak noted, "as a senator, Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical of Iraqi capability. Being tricky may no longer be as effective politically as it once was."
No doubt Dean, Lieberman, Clark and other rivals will now use these and other details to do to Kerry what the Democrats did to Dean.
(#31) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 07:58:11 AM EST
Reply
(#195) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Marla on 01/21/2004 07:41:57 AM EST
This was posted last night by someone else, but it is worth repeating......little Rock take note.
" My wife and I were in Washington DC last April. We watched many sessions of congress at a time Bush was making war. John Kerry was silent. As a senior Democrat, John Kerry failed to provide sound leadership at one of the most crucial times in American History. Many did have the guts to speak out, John Kerry was not one of them."
(#30) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 02:26:29 PM EST
For Immediate Release
Date: December 3, 2003
Clark Campaign Response to Senator Kerry's Fondness for James Baker
http://clark04.com/press/release/103/
Clark Campaign Communications Director Matt Bennett issued the following statement in response to Senator Kerry's comments today at the Council on Foreign Relations:
"Senator Kerry's suggestion that he might use Bush family consigliere James Baker as a special envoy to the Middle East is offensive. Baker, who was the driving force behind George W. Bush's theft of the 2000 election in the Florida recount, helped to disenfranchise thousands of voters.
We liked it better when Senator Kerry was calling Baker's Florida operation 'thuggism.' If Kerry wants a former Secretary of State who headed a recount effort in Florida, let's stay away from political thugs and go with Warren Christopher."
(#27) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:15:22 AM EST
Parent | Reply
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/22/221958/58
I wander was that Syrian accountability act in place by October 2003 when Clark asked Kerry to dismantle the preemption doctrine because W will attack more countries? Do you know? We need more on this.
(#26) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:09:53 AM EST
Reply
http://markusd.forclark.com/story/2004/1/19/123431/541
(#25) (Rated 5.00/1)
by JasonFromWaltham (jasondavis@massforclark.com) on 01/20/2004 01:03:34 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Don't forget authoring the Syria accountability act giving bush the power to take beligerant actions vs Syria. (quietly passed through congress in the fall... sshhhh... I am a constiuent.... I am not supposed to know his real record.)
(#24) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 05:54:47 PM EST
Reply
by julianyc (julianyc at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 05:09:04 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
As for Kerry's comments on Clark being a lobbyist
This is from the Center for Public Integrity's site.
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=4
Kerry's campaign has criticized General Clark for his brief stint as a lobbyist. Seems that Kerry was pretty close to a lobbyist himself for a telecom firm that gave him a LOT of money -- maybe he should have registered as a lobbyist as General Clark did -- but Clark wasn't in the US Senate at the time!
Kerry Carries Water for Top Donor
By M. Asif Ismail
WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found. That analysis is part of the Center's research for The Buying of the President 2004 (to be published by HarperCollins), which tracks the financial backers and interests of the major candidates for the White House.
Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor.
Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. has been the biggest financial backer of the Massachusetts Democrat's two decades-long political career in elected office, with its employees contributing nearly $187,000 to various Kerry races, including his current presidential campaign.
Kerry's ties to the firm go beyond campaign contributions. His brother Cameron F. Kerry is an attorney at the firm's Boston office, and David Leiter, who was the Senator's chief of staff for six years, is a lobbyist for ML Strategies LLC, a Mintz, Levin affiliate that provides consulting and lobbying services.
Mintz, Levin advertises communications law among its areas of expertise and lobbies on behalf of wireless industry clients such as AT&T Wireless Service, XO Communications Inc. and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. CTIA is the trade association of the wireless industry; its more than 320 members include carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers. CTIA-affiliated companies and their employees have contributed at least $152,000 to Kerry. The amount includes contributions made to his presidential campaign and his previous election efforts, his political action committees and the 527 group that Kerry formed. Verizon employees donated close to a third of that amount ($45,400).
Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have substantial holdings in telecommunications companies; between $17.6 million and $47.1 million of their combined fortune is held in companies with a stake in the industry, the Center's analysis of his financial disclosure form revealed. That falls in a range of roughly 7 percent to 11 percent of the couple's combined $165 million to $626 million in assets. Most of the fortune, and the stocks, belong to Heinz Kerry.
Some $3.9 million to $13.9 million of those holdings are in companies which are members of CTIA.
It goes on and on................
(#23) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:08:53 AM EST
Reply
http://john-in-houston.forclark.com/story/2004/1/19/103814/848
(#22) (No rating)
by John in Houston (John-in-Houston at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:03:43 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
There IS a need to explain to voters what the differences are between Clark and Kerry.
(#21) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 10:39:08 AM EST
Reply
[new] (#131) (No rating)
by John in Houston (John-in-Houston at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 10:34:55 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Where was Kerry?
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
If you compare Sen. Kerry's Senate speech in support of the war resolution with Gen. Clark's testimony before the Senate, several things jump out.
One point is that Clark makes important distinctions about the nature of the threat of Iraq which Kerry does not. Kerry focusses on Iraq as the threat, rather than a threat. Kerry speaks of the threat of bio-chem and nuclear WMD all on the same level, while Clark points out that we do not have evidence of an active nuclear program.
The big difference, however, is that Kerry insists on accountability and verification for Saddam...but not for Bush. The resolution had a hole in it a mile wide, and Bush drove right through it.
Clark agreed with Kerry that there must be diplomacy backed by force, that the U.S. must work through the U.N., that we had to act in concert with an international coalition, and that there should be a postwar plan, although Kerry only mentions reconstruction vaguely.
But Clark urged that before the President was authorized to use force, the President must come back to Congress and verify:
1. That ll diplomatic efforts had in fact failed
2. That an international coalition had in fact been formed
3. That a postwar reconstruction plan had been formed and was in place
(#20) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/18/2004 04:01:49 PM EST
Reply
http://ann.forclark.com/story/2004/1/15/13339/2911
Clark: Shaheen also backed Nixon
1/15/2004
Former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, the cochairwoman of Senator John F. Kerry's New Hampshire campaign, this week rapped retired Army General Wesley K. Clark over his Democratic credentials -- in particular, his votes for Republican presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. But the Clark campaign yesterday pointed out that Shaheen herself voted for Nixon in 1968. Shaheen revealed that fact to a Globe reporter in 1995, in a story about her political evolution. At the time, she told the Globe, she was concerned about disarray in the Democratic Party. Shaheen voted for George McGovern against Nixon in 1972 and got involved in New Hampshire Democratic politics shortly thereafter, according to the story. The Kerry campaign sniffed at the Shaheen-Clark comparison. "For 35 years, Jeanne Shaheen has been a leading Democrat in New Hampshire," said Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan. "Wes Clark has been a Democrat in New Hampshire for about 3 1/2 seconds." (Globe Staff)
(#18) (No rating)
by Anonymous on 01/15/2004 01:06:43 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Robbed - There is a lot of great stuff here. I would like to see you refurbish the material in the Comments here and add some further documentation of Kerry's stated positions and then reblog it all under a title like "Why not John Kerry?" in light of the tightening race in NH with Kerry coming from below (see the ARG NH poll for Jan 15). And also post some of these things to the GS blog, the way we hit on women's issues. We have been so geared toward anti-Dean argumentation, we need to sharpen our skills at anti-Kerry argumentation.With undecideds lurking let's make it easy for them to find all these goodies. Good work!!!
John in Houston
Kerry's sense of priorities
(#17) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:30:27 AM EST
Reply
MATTHEWS: Senator John Kerry joins us right now from the debate site.
Senator Kerry, I don`t know if you`ve heard--I`m sure you have. In addition to tonight`s debate, there`s big news out in the country tonight. That`s that the former secretary of the Treasury Paul O`Neill who was, I guess it`s fair to say, fired by the president, has some bad news for the country. He says the president`s people, including the president, decided from Inauguration Day that they were going to Iraq. What do you make of that? Is that intel, or is that rumor?
KERRY: Well, I think it--it ought to be examined. It`s an extraordinary statement. It`s an accusation that calls into question everything that the administration put in front of us, and I think it bears examination.
But, look, what`s important here tonight, Chris, is that when Howard Dean holds up that newspaper and talks about what`s happening, he`s avoiding the truth of his own statements, and he didn`t answer the question about what he said in October....
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3939628/
(#16) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:18:55 AM EST
Reply
:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4
>
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
>
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
>
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president: Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri.
(#15) (Rated 5.00/1)
Kerry loves preemption
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:16:30 AM EST
Reply
Senator Kerry issued the following statement
after the president's
(sic) speech last night:
"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is
the duty of any president,
in the final analysis, to defend this nation
and dispel the security
threats, both immediate and longer term,
against it. Saddam Hussein
has brought military action upon himself by
refusing for 12 years to
comply with the mandates of the United
Nations."
(#14) (No rating)
Nobody asked
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:14:00 AM EST
Reply
On Sunday's Meet The Press, host Tim Russert asked
both Joe Biden (D-DE) and John Kerry (D-MA) if they
had been asked to
sign a protest by
members of the House. Both said that they hadn't
been asked, but if they
had been, neither would
have signed. Kerry, in fact said, "I was struck
yesterday...I sort of was
taken aback...nobody
came to me and asked me to sign it. Had they, I
would've had the same
reaction as Joe did.
http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george010901.shtml
(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:12:44 AM EST
Reply
kerry said this on his floundering campaign:
"We got crowded out by the other events," he said. "Very simple.
Crowded out by first the Internet and Dean and the war, and then
crowded out by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then crowded out by the new
face on the block [Clark]. Now's the time for people to focus and say
who can be president."
(#12) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/14/2004 04:52:29 PM EST
Reply
Why did John Kerrry not vote on the recent Medicare bill?????
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&sessio n=1&vote=00459
Why did John Kerry tell the Florida Democratic Party convention that he voted against the medicare bill????
Address to Florida Democratic Party on December 6, 2003: "I voted against that medicare bill....." (21 minutes into his speech).
It is with a bit of irony that Kerry chose to lie to the Florida Democratic party about his voting against the medicare bill given what occurred there in the 2000 election. Yes, every vote does count --- even that of a Senator from Massachusetts. It does not matter that the bill was going to be passed with or without Senator Kerry's vote. How can Senator Kerry tell the people in this country that their vote does matter and that every single vote counts and that they should all get out there and participate in this thing we call democracy.
The people of Massachusetts elected him to stand up and be counted --- luckily for them they at least have someone like Sen. Kennedy who took the time to actually vote against the bill.
(#8) (Rated 5.00/3)
by texifornia (texifornia2@yahoo.com) on 01/12/2004 07:29:20 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Rebut to Kerry's "he's not a Democrat" nonsense:
Clark may have voted Republican in 1980, but Kerry has been voting Republican in the U.S. Senate for the last 18 years!
Rebut to Bush's "O'Neil was not privy to all the Iraq information". They like to say that O'Neil is not qualified to comment on National Security issues because he was, after all, the Treasury Secretary. What they forget to mention is that Paul O'Neil was a member of the National Security Council.
If the National Security Council did not have the information on Iraq, who the hell did??? Was the decision to invade Iraq not on the NSC's agenda? Why the hell not? Who was privy to the Iraq intelligence if not the NSC????
That should make 'em squirm.
Part Two
(#52)
by py on 01/24/2004 04:06:07 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Kerry's view of Clark's middle class tax cuts
He questioned whether Clark's plan, unveiled this week, to eliminate taxes on people earning less than $50,000 a year "kind of excuses them from a sense of responsibility for the country."
Kerry's Income and Wealth
Annual Net Income: $15,550,935 - $77,540,000
Net Worth: $198,794,683 - $839,038,000
Now, who's the Republican again, Senator Kerry?
(
(#50) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 02:12:21 PM EST
Reply
http://bmcw.forclark.com/story/2004/1/23/222022/594/
(#48) (No rating)
by py on 01/24/2004 12:23:27 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
There is a discussion on Democratic Underground here about the Drudge story that John Kerry criticized Bush as a deserter in 2000. However, many people posting there seem to believe that Drudge got the story wrong, confusing Massachusetts Senator John Kerry with Nebraska Senator Bob Kerrey. If you are on Democratic Underground, please straighten them out. Actually, in 2000 both criticized Bush as a deserter as the AP reported at the time:
At Gore's Pittsburgh rally, Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey used his introduction of Gore to accuse Bush of lying when he said he never disclosed the arrest in order to protect his young daughters. "Governor, you're covering your rear end. You were protecting yourself. You were concerned about what might happen to you," Kerrey said. "How dare you say that your character is superior to Vice President Gore."
The Nebraska senator and Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, both wounded in Vietnam, contended it's also a matter of character that Bush avoided duty oversees by joining the Texas Air National Guard. No documents have been found to show he reported for duty as ordered in Alabama in 1972.
"Those of us who were in the military wonder how it is that someone who is supposedly serving on active duty, having taken that oath, can miss a whole year of service without even explaining where it went," said Kerry.
What concerns me is not the accusation against Bush, which the facts support, but Kerry's defense of Bush this week on Crossfire, as Robbedvoter has discussed here.
(#47) (No rating)
Kerry's speech on preemtion
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 11:58:37 AM EST
Reply
http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=5722
(#46) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 11:06:16 AM EST
Reply
Kerry, Lieberman skip final Medicare vote to return to campaign trail
Find this article at:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/politics/20031125-1356-democrats-medicare.html
By Sam Hananel
ASSOCIATED PRESS
1:56 p.m. November 25, 2003
WASHINGTON - The only two senators to miss the final vote on landmark Medicare legislation were Democratic presidential candidates John Kerry and Joe Lieberman, who returned to the campaign trail Tuesday.
"
"There was no question about the passage," said Kerry, who was stumping in Iowa on Tuesday. "The vote was not going to make a difference in the outcome."
I wonder what the excuse is for the Omnibus bill then.
(#45) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 10:36:35 AM EST
Reply
Kerry's conundrum
Pro-gay in just about every other way, Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry says he just won't support same-sex marriage
By Chris Bull
snip
http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/898/898_kerry.asp
What exactly is your argument?
Kerry:My argument is that marriage is a union between men and women as defined through centuries. End of argument. Period. I don't make procreation or any other argument about it. It's just the way I've seen the issue.
Advocate: When you say it's "the way I've seen the issue," it sounds like you might be open to changing your position.
Kerry: Will I come to a different view sometime down the road? Who knows?
(#44) (No rating)
by roseba (divina1@hotmail.com) on 01/24/2004 10:29:09 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
I have expressed my doubts about Kerry here:
http://robbedvoter.forclark.com/story/2004/1/23/134438/097
It's a bit harsh.
(#42) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 07:21:35 AM EST
Reply
Sybil's research is here:
http://sybil.forclark.com/story/2004/1/11/21437/8099
(#41) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 07:17:29 AM EST
Reply
The smear campaign
TNR has copies of the smear sheets Kerry is using
in NH if any of you want to look. Truly disgusting.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/campaignjournal
(#40) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/24/2004 06:22:05 AM EST
Reply
Kerry in 2000
Senator plays role of Gore loyalist, Boston Globe, November 6 2000
.
"[Senator John] Kerry, a decorated Navy veteran of Vietnam, said Bush
should be scrutinized because he ends every speech by raising his
hand, taking a mock oath of office, and pledging to restore honor and
integrity to the White House. ''How is it that someone who's
supposedly serving on active duty, having supposedly taken that oath,
can miss a whole year of service without explaining where it went?''
Kerry asked the crowd."
Crossfire,Jan 23, 2000:
NOVAK: Senator Kerry, at last night's debate, General Clark was asked about a statement made in his presence by Michael Moore that President Bush is a -- was a deserter.
In the absence -- and General Clark said he didn't know anything about that, but he didn't know one way or the other.
KERRY: Yes.
NOVAK: In the absence of any -- any allegations to that effect, what do you think of calling the president of the United States a deserter? Or do you have some information that that is accurate?
KERRY: No, obviously, I don't. I think it's over-the-top language, Bob. And I think that's not what my campaign is about
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/23/cf.00.html.
So, John, were you speaking without knowing in 2000, or you forgotten since? And is this how you intend to confront W and the Rove machine?
(#38) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 10:02:13 AM EST
Reply
0401230445212">http://www.democracynow.orgarticle.pl?sid"red">0401230445212
AMY GOODMAN: But there is a fact about Kerry's past that brings him closer to Bush than any other candidate. Both Bush and Kerry are members of a secretive society dating back to their respective days at Yale University. It's called "Skull and Bones." This fact has not been widely reported, but when Kerry's campaign spokesperson was asked about it, she said, quote, "John Kerry has absolutely nothing to say on that subject. Sorry.
(#37) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/23/2004 06:46:40 AM EST
Reply
http://www.startribune.com/stories/587/4332464.html
Kerry, the winner of the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, has accepted money from two figures who later were prosecuted for election violations. He also has received substantial donations from telecommunications, media and steel companies overseen by committees on which he sits.
(#36) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 06:18:37 PM EST
Reply
Kerry justifying the Syria accountability act
http://jasonfromwaltham.forclark.com/story/2004/1/22/1801/68576
(#35) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 07:25:24 AM EST
Reply
Last night, at a NH townhall, Clark was introduced by a veteran who drew a comparison to kerry in his speech. Nothing vicious, just facts. In the end, Clark distanced himself from the comments, saying that he likes Kerry. People appreciated it ans told him so.
Mr Robbedvoter was impressed since 2 days ago, in Iowa, kerry was smiling over another vet spouting Shelton smears about Clark - who wasn't even competing there. No distancing - and Mr Robevoter was disturbed by it then.
So, as to clarify: this blog is to collect facts only. I have no intent to attack or smear - simply to effective respond to attacks which I know are forthcoming.
Mr Kerry, you may still learn from Clark to campaign above the road. If you do, this stuff stays here. if you don't, it travels. I am not a statesman. I am just a Clark supporter, a free agent, a big mouthed new Yorker. That means, I will defend him from smears. So it;s up to you, John.
(#34) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/22/2004 06:39:56 AM EST
Reply
Dissing the coup 2000 again
by katusha (katush@email.com) on 01/22/2004 05:43:01 AM EST
just saw kerry answering about how being a southerner helps in the pres. race and kerry said "if where you were from mattered then Al Gore would be president today"
Sen Kerry Al Gore IS the president today!!
just another example of how you roll over for the right wing when it matters. maybe you used to fight nixon and the establishment but that was before you became the establishment.
(#33) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 03:54:41 PM EST
Reply
I want a 2004 candidate who lets the world see what Al Gore would be like if he were a Yankee.
I want a Democratic nominee who, like Bush, eschews federal matching funds for his political campaign -- but only after blaming rival Howard Dean for dropping out of the matching-fund system first.
I want Kerry to win the nod so that he can raise enough money to pay off the loan and the mortgage he took out on his Boston home after he said no to matching funds.
And then I want to hear Kerry denounce the pernicious influence of big- money special interests.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/01/18/EDGLQ4APBC1.DTL
(#32) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 12:39:43 PM EST
Reply
* Waffling on Iraq:
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/1/20/131219.shtml
Kerry has the tough job of wooing Howard Dean's anti-war Democrats despite his support of the war in Iraq. His favorite tactic, claiming the president outfoxed him, doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
On "Meet the Press" in late August, Tim Russert played a tape of Kerry addressing the Senate in October 2002 with a hard-line speech declaring Iraq "capable of quickly producing weaponizing" of biological weapons that could be delivered against "the United States itself."
Kerry insisted: "That is exactly the point I'm making. We were given this information by our intelligence community."
However, as columnist Robert Novak noted, "as a senator, Kerry had access to the National Intelligence Estimate that was skeptical of Iraqi capability. Being tricky may no longer be as effective politically as it once was."
No doubt Dean, Lieberman, Clark and other rivals will now use these and other details to do to Kerry what the Democrats did to Dean.
(#31) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/21/2004 07:58:11 AM EST
Reply
(#195) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Marla on 01/21/2004 07:41:57 AM EST
This was posted last night by someone else, but it is worth repeating......little Rock take note.
" My wife and I were in Washington DC last April. We watched many sessions of congress at a time Bush was making war. John Kerry was silent. As a senior Democrat, John Kerry failed to provide sound leadership at one of the most crucial times in American History. Many did have the guts to speak out, John Kerry was not one of them."
(#30) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 02:26:29 PM EST
For Immediate Release
Date: December 3, 2003
Clark Campaign Response to Senator Kerry's Fondness for James Baker
http://clark04.com/press/release/103/
Clark Campaign Communications Director Matt Bennett issued the following statement in response to Senator Kerry's comments today at the Council on Foreign Relations:
"Senator Kerry's suggestion that he might use Bush family consigliere James Baker as a special envoy to the Middle East is offensive. Baker, who was the driving force behind George W. Bush's theft of the 2000 election in the Florida recount, helped to disenfranchise thousands of voters.
We liked it better when Senator Kerry was calling Baker's Florida operation 'thuggism.' If Kerry wants a former Secretary of State who headed a recount effort in Florida, let's stay away from political thugs and go with Warren Christopher."
(#27) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:15:22 AM EST
Parent | Reply
http://Blog.forclark.com/story/2003/12/22/221958/58
I wander was that Syrian accountability act in place by October 2003 when Clark asked Kerry to dismantle the preemption doctrine because W will attack more countries? Do you know? We need more on this.
(#26) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/20/2004 06:09:53 AM EST
Reply
http://markusd.forclark.com/story/2004/1/19/123431/541
(#25) (Rated 5.00/1)
by JasonFromWaltham (jasondavis@massforclark.com) on 01/20/2004 01:03:34 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Don't forget authoring the Syria accountability act giving bush the power to take beligerant actions vs Syria. (quietly passed through congress in the fall... sshhhh... I am a constiuent.... I am not supposed to know his real record.)
(#24) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 05:54:47 PM EST
Reply
by julianyc (julianyc at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 05:09:04 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
As for Kerry's comments on Clark being a lobbyist
This is from the Center for Public Integrity's site.
http://www.bop2004.org/bop2004/report.aspx?aid=4
Kerry's campaign has criticized General Clark for his brief stint as a lobbyist. Seems that Kerry was pretty close to a lobbyist himself for a telecom firm that gave him a LOT of money -- maybe he should have registered as a lobbyist as General Clark did -- but Clark wasn't in the US Senate at the time!
Kerry Carries Water for Top Donor
By M. Asif Ismail
WASHINGTON, May 7, 2003 -- Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass., whose largest campaign contributor lobbies on behalf of telecommunication interests, pushed the legislative priorities of its clients in the wireless industry on several occasions, a Center for Public Integrity analysis of campaign, lobbying and congressional records has found. That analysis is part of the Center's research for The Buying of the President 2004 (to be published by HarperCollins), which tracks the financial backers and interests of the major candidates for the White House.
Kerry, who is seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, has sponsored or co-sponsored a number of bills favorable to the industry and has written letters to government agencies on behalf of the clientele of his largest donor.
Boston-based Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo P.C. has been the biggest financial backer of the Massachusetts Democrat's two decades-long political career in elected office, with its employees contributing nearly $187,000 to various Kerry races, including his current presidential campaign.
Kerry's ties to the firm go beyond campaign contributions. His brother Cameron F. Kerry is an attorney at the firm's Boston office, and David Leiter, who was the Senator's chief of staff for six years, is a lobbyist for ML Strategies LLC, a Mintz, Levin affiliate that provides consulting and lobbying services.
Mintz, Levin advertises communications law among its areas of expertise and lobbies on behalf of wireless industry clients such as AT&T Wireless Service, XO Communications Inc. and the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association. CTIA is the trade association of the wireless industry; its more than 320 members include carriers, manufacturers and wireless Internet providers. CTIA-affiliated companies and their employees have contributed at least $152,000 to Kerry. The amount includes contributions made to his presidential campaign and his previous election efforts, his political action committees and the 527 group that Kerry formed. Verizon employees donated close to a third of that amount ($45,400).
Kerry and his wife Teresa Heinz Kerry have substantial holdings in telecommunications companies; between $17.6 million and $47.1 million of their combined fortune is held in companies with a stake in the industry, the Center's analysis of his financial disclosure form revealed. That falls in a range of roughly 7 percent to 11 percent of the couple's combined $165 million to $626 million in assets. Most of the fortune, and the stocks, belong to Heinz Kerry.
Some $3.9 million to $13.9 million of those holdings are in companies which are members of CTIA.
It goes on and on................
(#23) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:08:53 AM EST
Reply
http://john-in-houston.forclark.com/story/2004/1/19/103814/848
(#22) (No rating)
by John in Houston (John-in-Houston at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 11:03:43 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Parent | Reply
There IS a need to explain to voters what the differences are between Clark and Kerry.
(#21) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 10:39:08 AM EST
Reply
[new] (#131) (No rating)
by John in Houston (John-in-Houston at forclark dot com) on 01/19/2004 10:34:55 AM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Where was Kerry?
http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html
If you compare Sen. Kerry's Senate speech in support of the war resolution with Gen. Clark's testimony before the Senate, several things jump out.
One point is that Clark makes important distinctions about the nature of the threat of Iraq which Kerry does not. Kerry focusses on Iraq as the threat, rather than a threat. Kerry speaks of the threat of bio-chem and nuclear WMD all on the same level, while Clark points out that we do not have evidence of an active nuclear program.
The big difference, however, is that Kerry insists on accountability and verification for Saddam...but not for Bush. The resolution had a hole in it a mile wide, and Bush drove right through it.
Clark agreed with Kerry that there must be diplomacy backed by force, that the U.S. must work through the U.N., that we had to act in concert with an international coalition, and that there should be a postwar plan, although Kerry only mentions reconstruction vaguely.
But Clark urged that before the President was authorized to use force, the President must come back to Congress and verify:
1. That ll diplomatic efforts had in fact failed
2. That an international coalition had in fact been formed
3. That a postwar reconstruction plan had been formed and was in place
(#20) (No rating)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/18/2004 04:01:49 PM EST
Reply
http://ann.forclark.com/story/2004/1/15/13339/2911
Clark: Shaheen also backed Nixon
1/15/2004
Former New Hampshire governor Jeanne Shaheen, the cochairwoman of Senator John F. Kerry's New Hampshire campaign, this week rapped retired Army General Wesley K. Clark over his Democratic credentials -- in particular, his votes for Republican presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George H.W. Bush. But the Clark campaign yesterday pointed out that Shaheen herself voted for Nixon in 1968. Shaheen revealed that fact to a Globe reporter in 1995, in a story about her political evolution. At the time, she told the Globe, she was concerned about disarray in the Democratic Party. Shaheen voted for George McGovern against Nixon in 1972 and got involved in New Hampshire Democratic politics shortly thereafter, according to the story. The Kerry campaign sniffed at the Shaheen-Clark comparison. "For 35 years, Jeanne Shaheen has been a leading Democrat in New Hampshire," said Kerry spokesman Michael Meehan. "Wes Clark has been a Democrat in New Hampshire for about 3 1/2 seconds." (Globe Staff)
(#18) (No rating)
by Anonymous on 01/15/2004 01:06:43 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Robbed - There is a lot of great stuff here. I would like to see you refurbish the material in the Comments here and add some further documentation of Kerry's stated positions and then reblog it all under a title like "Why not John Kerry?" in light of the tightening race in NH with Kerry coming from below (see the ARG NH poll for Jan 15). And also post some of these things to the GS blog, the way we hit on women's issues. We have been so geared toward anti-Dean argumentation, we need to sharpen our skills at anti-Kerry argumentation.With undecideds lurking let's make it easy for them to find all these goodies. Good work!!!
John in Houston
Kerry's sense of priorities
(#17) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:30:27 AM EST
Reply
MATTHEWS: Senator John Kerry joins us right now from the debate site.
Senator Kerry, I don`t know if you`ve heard--I`m sure you have. In addition to tonight`s debate, there`s big news out in the country tonight. That`s that the former secretary of the Treasury Paul O`Neill who was, I guess it`s fair to say, fired by the president, has some bad news for the country. He says the president`s people, including the president, decided from Inauguration Day that they were going to Iraq. What do you make of that? Is that intel, or is that rumor?
KERRY: Well, I think it--it ought to be examined. It`s an extraordinary statement. It`s an accusation that calls into question everything that the administration put in front of us, and I think it bears examination.
But, look, what`s important here tonight, Chris, is that when Howard Dean holds up that newspaper and talks about what`s happening, he`s avoiding the truth of his own statements, and he didn`t answer the question about what he said in October....
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3939628/
(#16) (Rated 5.00/3)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:18:55 AM EST
Reply
:
> http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030131/ap_on_go_co/congress_iraq_4
>
> Two senior Democratic senators, Robert Byrd
> of West Virginia and Ted Kennedy of
> Massachusetts, this week proposed separate
> bills on the matter. Byrd's would require President
> Bush (news - web sites) to seek a fresh vote
> in the U.N. Security Council before attacking Iraq;
> Kennedy's would require new votes in
> Congress before doing so.
>
> But the chance of approval for either
> measure is slim, given GOP control of the Senate and a
> lack of enthusiasm from Democratic
> congressional leaders.
>
> The bills aren't supported by any of the
> four Democratic members of Congress running for
> president: Sens. John Kerry of
> Massachusetts, Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of
> Connecticut and John Edwards of North
> Carolina, and Rep. Richard Gephardt (news, bio,
> voting record) of Missouri.
(#15) (Rated 5.00/1)
Kerry loves preemption
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:16:30 AM EST
Reply
Senator Kerry issued the following statement
after the president's
(sic) speech last night:
"Even having botched the diplomacy, it is
the duty of any president,
in the final analysis, to defend this nation
and dispel the security
threats, both immediate and longer term,
against it. Saddam Hussein
has brought military action upon himself by
refusing for 12 years to
comply with the mandates of the United
Nations."
(#14) (No rating)
Nobody asked
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:14:00 AM EST
Reply
On Sunday's Meet The Press, host Tim Russert asked
both Joe Biden (D-DE) and John Kerry (D-MA) if they
had been asked to
sign a protest by
members of the House. Both said that they hadn't
been asked, but if they
had been, neither would
have signed. Kerry, in fact said, "I was struck
yesterday...I sort of was
taken aback...nobody
came to me and asked me to sign it. Had they, I
would've had the same
reaction as Joe did.
http://www.nationalreview.com/george/george010901.shtml
(#13) (Rated 5.00/1)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/15/2004 11:12:44 AM EST
Reply
kerry said this on his floundering campaign:
"We got crowded out by the other events," he said. "Very simple.
Crowded out by first the Internet and Dean and the war, and then
crowded out by Arnold Schwarzenegger, and then crowded out by the new
face on the block [Clark]. Now's the time for people to focus and say
who can be president."
(#12) (Rated 5.00/2)
by Robbedvoter (Robbedvoter at forclark dot com) on 01/14/2004 04:52:29 PM EST
Reply
Why did John Kerrry not vote on the recent Medicare bill?????
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&sessio n=1&vote=00459
Why did John Kerry tell the Florida Democratic Party convention that he voted against the medicare bill????
Address to Florida Democratic Party on December 6, 2003: "I voted against that medicare bill....." (21 minutes into his speech).
It is with a bit of irony that Kerry chose to lie to the Florida Democratic party about his voting against the medicare bill given what occurred there in the 2000 election. Yes, every vote does count --- even that of a Senator from Massachusetts. It does not matter that the bill was going to be passed with or without Senator Kerry's vote. How can Senator Kerry tell the people in this country that their vote does matter and that every single vote counts and that they should all get out there and participate in this thing we call democracy.
The people of Massachusetts elected him to stand up and be counted --- luckily for them they at least have someone like Sen. Kennedy who took the time to actually vote against the bill.
(#8) (Rated 5.00/3)
by texifornia (texifornia2@yahoo.com) on 01/12/2004 07:29:20 PM EST
Rate this: - 1 2 3 4 5 + | Reply
Rebut to Kerry's "he's not a Democrat" nonsense:
Clark may have voted Republican in 1980, but Kerry has been voting Republican in the U.S. Senate for the last 18 years!
Rebut to Bush's "O'Neil was not privy to all the Iraq information". They like to say that O'Neil is not qualified to comment on National Security issues because he was, after all, the Treasury Secretary. What they forget to mention is that Paul O'Neil was a member of the National Security Council.
If the National Security Council did not have the information on Iraq, who the hell did??? Was the decision to invade Iraq not on the NSC's agenda? Why the hell not? Who was privy to the Iraq intelligence if not the NSC????
That should make 'em squirm.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)