[.cnI redruM]

52-48. Which side wins is still up in the air.

[Patriot1998]

JUST SO YOU WONT FORGET WHO SAID WHAT!



"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them.
That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear.
We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from USA but, what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"We urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S.Constitution and Laws, to take necessary actions, (including, if appropriate,
air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction
programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs
continue a pace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandated of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002


"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998.
We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities.
Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" Rep.
Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program.
He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members . It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan.23.2003

[IncPen]

As long as no one finds out that Kerry served in Viet Nam, Bush is a shoo-in.

[Mad_Tom_Rackham]

Bush is a socialist. Kerry is a communist. That is our choice.

[g35x]

Yes it certainly will be interesting to see how close Bush comes to equalling or beating the Reagan landslide of 1984.

[txzman]

Don't forget that 'boring' Kerry will NOT energize the young, the hip, the angry and the newly interested - they will stay home in November and watch it all on MTV.

[Kay Soze]

Will be very interesting to see how successful W is in taking over the demoncartic constituency.

The same voters Kerry will be targeting!



"GOP leaders see little chance of a significant grassroots revolt over Ws immigration policy.-That's an incorrect reading, my friends- Rush Limbaugh 1-30-04

[NYCVirago]

And while loathing of Bush has far from disappeared in the Democratic presidential race, Kerry's gaining of the upper hand is likely to put intelligent limits on Bush hatred in the presidential campaign from now on.

What a crock. This is the second Weekly Standard article this week that really ticks me off. Kerry challenges Bush at the end of every speech with "Bring it on" and says "we're coming, you're going, and don't let the door hit you on the way out." How different is that from Dean or any other of the Bush haters?

[EGPWS]

For President Bush and his political team, the strategic landscape has become far simpler.

Yep, for the sociopath won't be able to keep his mouth shut and fade away as he should. This is the BEST political asset Dubya has going for him in his endeavors to be reelected.

[NetValue]

The fun is in watching Kerry morph into Jane Fonda. We should call him "Hanoi John".

[RJCogburn]

Good post. Thanks.

[bereanway]

Kerry may be able to give different answers to the same question depending on the setting but he does have an extremely liberal voting record. There is a congressional track record on this guy and the republicans should hammer him as a big time liberal throughout the campgain.

Ultimately, he is a northeastern liberal democrat who can be easily defeated if he is presented as such.

[SunkenCiv]

For Democrats, this is likely to mean a sophisticated, predictable, low-risk national campaign, somewhat analogous to Bob Dole's 1996 challenge of President Clinton. A Kerry nomination is precisely the kind of result aimed for by Democratic chairman Terry McAuliffe in his drive to front-load the primaries, assuring an early nominee who will have plenty of time to unify the party. In a bonus for McAuliffe, the prospective nominee opted out of his federal matching-funds subsidy, exempting him from the anachronistically low fundraising limits assigned to nomination fights. The Kerry campaign is free to spend as much as it can raise between now and the party convention.

Two possibilities -- the first is that the Dean campaign will now surge back, because Kerry doesn't interest most Democrats, bringing about a convention fight (which is the scenario I'd prefer, quite frankly). Dean supporters have an inexplicable devotion to their shallow hero's alleged positions on things.

The second is that the machine politics familiar from many decades of "Democratic" history will lock in the nomination for Kerry. That's the scenario implied by the editorial.

What most infuriates Howard Dean about John Kerry is the latter's tendency to alternate between the two possible answers to such seemingly binary questions as President Bush's invasion of Iraq. Dean, like Kerry's other opponents, has watched helplessly as the front-runner alternately takes hawkish and dovish stances, depending on the headlines of the week.

Yeah, right, because Dean never does that.

The third scenario is utter abandonment of the nominee, whomever it turns out to be, by everyone except the "Anybody but Bush" groupthink three minute hate crowd and the always vote straight ticket don't think just do it crowd. Both of those crowds are small and shrinking.

It wouldn't surprise me if the whole field again turns over, because I'm not too sure I believe this:

It marks the defeat of Howard Dean's antiwar, left-populist rebellion by the quintessential candidate of the Democratic establishment.

Them's fightin' words for the Dean supporters, and also for the lifelong Democretins -- how dare you tell us what we're thinking?!?

There's also the fact that the Democripples didn't offer a single viable candidate who was for the war, apart from Lieberman, and he isn't really viable either. Regarding the War on Terror, the only way out is through (to rip a line from the lifelong Democreature Joel Mabus, a folk singer).

Edwards swears up and down that he will be the nominee, and that's his standard answer for "will you accept the VP nomination?" One may recall how JFK nearly wound up the VP nominee (Stevenson was the P nominee) to run against Eisenhower/Nixon, and later said, if he had his political career would have been over.

Edwards can reasonably look toward 2008 and an attempt at wresting the nomination away from Shelob, er, Hillary, provided he doesn't screw anything up. Yeah, he's just another slimy ambulance chaser, but he has nice hair. And that's enough to elect a Dim to the presidency. If you don't believe me, look into the old Carter campaign sometime. :')

For President Bush and his political team, the strategic landscape has become far simpler. Fallen by the wayside are such divergent scenarios as a centrist New Democrat trying to pick off a few of the red states, an anti-political man on horseback, an Old Left protectionist appeal to the agricultural and industrial heartland, and (within a very short time, we believe) a '60s-style challenge to America's role in the world.

The only weakness in the Bush-Cheney ticket is Cheney. His health has been an issue right along. Obviously no one seems to much care, but it's apparently a carefully calculated false target, like the moving cape for the bull.

[Jim Noble]

On November 6, 2000, TWO AND A HALF MILLION MORE AMERICANS voted for socialism and retreat than voted for Bush.

His reelection is by no means a certainty.

[hosepipe]

I'm getting the feeling someone on this forum thinks the american voteing public is smarter THAN Al Gore.. and since Gore won a full half of the voteing public in 2000..

I NEED EVIDENCE...

[lasereye]

I think this article hit the bullseye. Bush can't keep trying to orient his campaign around appealing to moderates, which seems to be Rove's strategy. He has to clarify differences between himself and Kerry on the social issues, especially abortion, and not back down. If he doesn't have the guts to do that, he deserves to lose. And if Rove doesn't like it, can him.

[SunkenCiv]

Last one, although it lists first. :') Got these out of my "Secret Handshake" thread, which I started a long while ago, and drew flies like yesterday's horse pile. ;'P