about as much as Tina Turner needed Ike !

[DeadElephant_ORG]

This battle is much bigger than Hillary and Barack, and it's been building up for YEARS - at least since Bill and the DLC dems ended welfare.

I thought that our party would fracture directly after Kerry lost. Bear in mind that W. was re-elected during the height of his botched war, after no weapons of mass destruction had been found, and it was plain to see that he had lied. Recall that Kerry had moved sharply right during the campaign, just as Hillary is now: he DEFENDED Bush's war, and said he would have authorize the invasion even if he had known at the time that Bush was lying, and that Iraq did not have WMDs! At that time "mainstream Democrats" called out anybody who dared complain that Bush had lied us into the war. Never mind that they'd just LOST an election that they should have easily won, they STILL wanted to play act at being Republicans - the "Republican Lite" party. And the DLC Dems still considered "activist Democrats" to be a bigger threat than the neoCons who were rapidly amassing imperial powers: kidnapping, torturing, spying, mocking our minority in Congress, and calling us "terrorist sympathizers" and "traitors".

And now, the night before a do-or-die primary, with no provocation at all, Hillary Clinton threatens to "obliterate" an entire country with whom we are not at war. And you thought "bomb bomb Iran" was strictly for Republicans! This is the same "Democrat" who wants us to believe that she voted for the war, but didn't expect Bush to actually invade Iraq. I ask you, did YOU expect that Bush would invade if he was authorized to by Congress? I sure as hell did. And so did millions of "activist Democrats" who gathered in mass protests all over our nation.

You may not like to hear this, but it is time for progressive Democrats to file for divorce.

The more desperate Hillary becomes to show how tough she is - throwing back shots with the boys, and dodging non-existent sniper-fire - the more she humiliates our Party, and the less we can recognize in her the woman we once greatly admired. If she becomes our nominee, we will LOSE. We will lose the same way that Kerry lost, and for exactly the same reason: If the voters want a Republican for president, they won't vote for a Democrat who pretends to be a Republican. Give the American people credit - they recognize a sell-out when they see one.

We need Hillary, and her DLC sell-outs, like Tina Turner needed Ike. Will it be easy to win without them? No. We'll have to work a hell of a lot harder this summer to put Barack in the White House. If we lose, we lose for the right reasons for a change. No more pandering and pretending, and getting the sh#t kicked out of us anyway. Either way, Democrats will likely control both houses of Congress. And we will once again have a Democratic party that stands up for our long-honored progressive values.

[sandnsea]

1. No. He did not say he would invade Iraq

Where do you get your news?

[DeadElephant_ORG]

8. Bull SH#T. Here's a selection of his quotes:.

January 31, 2003: “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” by Ronald Brownstein, Los Angeles Times. John Kerry said:

“If You Don’t Believe . . . Saddam Hussein is a threat with nuclear weapons, then you shouldn’t vote for me.”

December 15, 2003: Fox News’ “Special Report,” Senator John Kerry said

“Iraq may not be the war on terror itself, but it is critical to the outcome of the war on terror. And therefore any advance in Iraq is an advance forward in that. And I disagree with the Governor (Howard Dean).”

Even after Bush's lie became obvious, that there were NO weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Kerry insisted he would have authorized war anyway:

August 9, 2004: John Kerry on CNN's "Inside Politics"

Response to President's question about how he would have voted if he knew then what he knows now, Kerry confirmed that he would still have voted for Use of Force Resolution.

SEN. JOHN KERRY: "Yes, I would have voted for the authority.

[sandnsea]

11. Where does it say he would have invaded???

Nowhere.

And you cherry-picked the other quotes. Do you think a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would be a threat? Howard Dean did, and said so repeatedly. Do you think the failure in Iraq has fueled terrorism? Oh yeah, I guess Kerry was right about that. It would have been better to have a peaceful Iraq by now.

Kerry consistently spoke out against the invasion and consistently said he never would have went to war. He supported continued inspections at the time of the invasion and very forcefully and clearly said so.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

12. It says that he would have authorized the invasion EVEN KNOWING Iraq had no WMDs

Of course "a Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons" WOULD have been a threat. The only little problem there is that there never was any such creature. GET A CLUE: HE NEVER HAD NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The "smoking gun / mushroom cloud" WAS A LIE. Kerry was making Bush's argument. And now YOU are making Bush's argument. I don't know whether or not Kerry suspected Bush was lying - but I do know that he thought it was politically expedient to accept Bush's bullshit! Just as Hillary now finds it expedient to accept Bush's bullshit! This time we have a National Intelligence Estimate that is explicit: IRAN does not have a nuclear weapons program.

But maybe you'd like to accept President Bush's "gut feelings" about such issues. Hillary apparently does.

[sandnsea]

13. They were ALL making that argument

including Dennis Kucinich. And, no, Kerry did not say he would have authorized the invasion. He opposed the invasion consistently. There was nothing in the authorization that required an invasion.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

15. "There was nothing in the authorization that required an invasion." ... uh huh

So tell us --- we YOU surprised when Bush invaded?

[sandnsea]

16. I was hopeful the country would oppose him

with people like John Kerry speaking out strongly against the invasion.

But when you had the Clintons refusing to take any kind of truly vocal opposition to the invasion, that pretty much ended any chance of turning public opinion.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

17. fair enough

I appreciate your honesty. My own idealism got the better of me back then - worse than yours. I thought "Bush wouldn't invade if there really are no weapons there - that would be political suicide! Besides... who would lie about weapons of mass destruction?"

I've been an activist my entire adult life. But after the invasion, when our own weapons inspectors came back empty-handed - and Bush literally laughed it off - it was a singularly radicalizing experience.

[Maddy McCall]

2. Stupid post. Stupid analogy. I give it two thumbs down.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

3. coming from you, Maddy, that's a compliment. n/t

[burythehatchet]

20. excellent post. Kick the DLC bastards out.

[Texas Hill Country]

5. i give it two thumbs way down.

[DeadElephant_ORG]

10. but do tell us why you think there's no analogy.

[Radical Activist]

14. Yeah. Tina recorded her best music with Ike.

So the analogy is no good.

[crankychatter]

4. k/r no text

:-)

[MonkeyFunk]

6. Without Ike

Tina would just be somebody's Grandma Anna Mae.

To think that any one wing of the party can succeed without the other is just idiotic.

[JVS]

7. But you must admit that at some point, Tina needed to lose Ike.

[MonkeyFunk]

18. sure

but the idea being put forth seems to be that Tina didn't need Ike. That's patently untrue. For all his faults, Ike was something of a genius, and without him, it's doubtful Tina would've ever been a star.

And again, the idea that one wing of the party can succeed without the other is ludicrous. The democratic party is a coalition - and an oftentimes fragile one. These calls for purges are just stupid and counterproductive.

[Triana]

9. Divorce the damn DLC - I'll go along with that. I might not have a month or so ago ...

...but seeing what Hillary hath wrought, I think it's time.

[SparkyMac]

19. Are we going to lose another sure win ?

Bear in mind that W. was re-elected during the height of his botched war, after no weapons of mass destruction had been found, and it was plain to see that he had lied.

You are exactly right. 2004 was ours to lose. And what did we do ? We scoured the country to find a candidate who could lose a sure thing.

Aren't we doing the same thing this years ?

[burythehatchet]

21. Hillary will make certain that the Dems lose. That is her assignment.