What would Bush do to keep these men silenced?

[blm]

John Kerry assembled a team to confront Bush on the issues Rove wants to take to the American people in 2004. National security and the fear of terrorism. No doubt, the last thing Rove needs are experts in those areas speaking out during the general election against Bush and for the Democratic opponent.

Gary Hart, knows more about national security and antiterrorism measures than any national figure. He is the author of the Hart-Rudman report which was delivered to Bush in Jan. 2001 after a 2 1/2 year study commissioned by Clinton. The report wasn't dealt with at all prior to 9-11.


Rand Beers, former National Security Official, knows the inner workings of the Bush team's post 9-11 efforts, of which he observed mostly inertia and incompetence.

Max Cleland, 9-11 commission, knows the Bush team is trying to pull a fast one on the American people by covering up crucial information of dealings that led to 9-11. Has been speaking out to groups across the country, and swinging the AWOLSTICK as a bonus

Gen. William Perry, Clinton's expert on nuclear arms proliferation and N. Korea, knows Bush's failures on the serious Korea issue and his incompetence in dealing with its threat.

Joe Wilson, the man who knows TOO much. Exposed Cheney's office as the source for cooked intelligence reports on Iraq. Also alerted public to treasonous acts by White House in exposing his wife, an undercover CIA agent. Many in intel community aligning with Wilson and his wife against the WH.

The media is loathe to give these men the airtime at this point because they are too damaging to Bush on his perceived strengths. They can afford to ignore them and the substance of their case against Bush because they are selling the American people the "process" of the primary horserace as entertainment. If Kerry were the nominee, the media would have no choice but to feature his spokespeople on the various issues.

Kerry assembled a team to TAKE BUSH DOWN, while some others assembled a team to take Kerry down. Democrats need to take this into consideration. BushInc. NEEDS these men and their message muted.

[bryant69]

1. hey when you say some others, you mean Dean, right?

Ironic, considering one of Kerry's problems is the number of swipes he's taken of Dean.

But irony aside this sounds like a great team, and I do hope he can get there message out even if he doesn't get the nomination--what is the source for this?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[blm]

3. All of these men have endorsed Kerry and are on his campaign team.

www.johnkerry.com

Here's what I see....Wilson came forward with his column fingering Cheney last July. It's reasonable to believe that he would have lined up insiders support before he made such a bold move. I don't doubt that move was orchestrated by those working behind the scenes against BushInc.

You can't expect the intel community to trust someone they don't think has a grasp on what goes on. They KNOW Kerry does because of his diligent work in exposing BCCI and IranContra, and CIA drugrunning. They know Kerry wrote the book on terrorism and its international funding back in 1997. Of course they know they can trust him.

Why are so many willing to work AGAINST those in that intel community who want to take down BushInc.?

[Mountainman]

5. Well if Clark should get the nomination Kerry's team should work for him

I guess we will see where this group's sense of responcibility lies if Kerry is not nominated and I don't think he will be.

I believe Clark or Dean will get the nomination and I hope this team keeps doing it's best to unseat Bush at that point.

[blm]

6. They might trust Clark...

but, Gary Hart is already on record last spring as saying neither Dean or Lieberman has the grasp of foreign policy needed.

You're also dealing with an INTEL community that needs TRUST above all else. Why would they trust the person who is cooperating in stifling their case at this time?

[blm]

46. PS on Clark....

he's likely been vetted pretty heavily over the years. I think the intel community appreciates disciplined personalities. They may also appreciate Edwards' doggedness in presenting a case.

[blm]

30. BTW, bryant, if you are a someone who keeps up with the news,

doesn't it make my point that you had no idea that these men are part of Kerry's team and have been for quite awhile? The media won't LET Kerry's real message be heard. That's why it's better for them to focus on attack politics that cover up the real story.

And that's why I knew back in January when Dean first started attacking the others that it would set the tone for the whole campaign and become the story. In fairness to the other candidates, they held off on reciprocating against Dean until he had to be answered.

[KC21304]

2. That about says it, blm.

But you know all those people who would never want facts to get in the way of a good story.

I see some pull up Republican and media talking points from 2000,insert Kerry's name and change a few of the incidentials.

[blm]

32. Yep. To the media now Kerry is Gore and Dean is Bush.

Until, of course, it's time to strip the teflon granted Dean for the primary and place it back upon Bush.

[Wickerman]

4. Why can Kerry only take down Bush* by winning the election?

With all this good evidence and a great team he should be able to take him down now. If he doesn't win I hope he passes his info on to the Dem who does so that Bush* and his gang of thugs get a nice long stay in some Fed pen.

[sangh0]

7. Straw man argument

blm didn't say Kerry can only take Bush* down if Kerry wins the election. However, I doubt anyone would argue that it would be easier for Kerry (or anyone else for that matter) to uncover and prosecute Bush*'s crimes if they win the election.

[Wickerman]

9. Not really, see post 8

[sangh0]

12. I saw post #8

It doesn't say Kerry has to win the election. It makes the same, exact, argument I did. Being elected will help.

[blm]

8. Because right now the media can IGNORE these men in favor

of the process of the horserace. They don't HAVE to feature Kerry's spokespeople on the issues right now because they are feeding Dem audiences and the American people a diet completely devoid of substantive issues that can truly damage Bush. That's why they pump up the volume on the angry liberal meme.

If Kerry was the nominee the media couldn't easily bypass his spokespeople. These men would have months of airtime to make their case.

[Wickerman]

10. Thats more concise

I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, I just want to see the case made better. I'm still not certain why other candidates can't do the same, and if those individuals named couldn't do the same behind a Dean, Kucinich or Clark? Neither of those has Kerry's baggage of voting for Iraqi resolution. I respect Kerry's statement of

"I voted to hold Iraq accountable and hold Saddam Hussein accountable. That was the right vote for the defense of the United States of America."

but I disagree. If he knew Bush* was so evil then he shouldn't have trusted him with his vote... That vote is a major sticking point for me and support to Kerry.

[blm]

11. In fairness, Kerry's sticking point was always further

weapons inspections. That was a big concern and he was able to get that in the resolution. Back in 98 when he worked with Clinton on a military plan for Iraq, they ended up bombing targeted areas suspected of being the WMD sites. Without weapons inspections they had no idea if they eliminated those programs or not.

Those who say it was just a politically expedient vote are completely unaware of Clinton and Kerry's work in 98.

[Wickerman]

27. Agreed and admirable

yet I don't think he was correct in voting for the resolution. I particularly didn't agree with this passage and as I recall a majority of DU believed it was a wrong vote (not just for Kerry):

(a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

I never saw thta it lended enough support to inspections and it didn't require Bush* to come back to Kerry and colleagues for further authorization. They gave away the farm.

[blm]

31. giving away the farm was the further invasion of Iran and Syria

which Bush wanted. He also wanted to avoid going to the UN period. No show of evidence, no weapons inspectors.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

13. This should sell well in Iowa

and I think the governor might even help:

Dean Must Show Strength, Iowa Governor Says

[blm]

14. It should sell to EVERY patriot in this country.

There is a much bigger picture here that is not being dealt with because the "Angry Democrat" meme is being widespread by the media. They want to shove political ENTERTAINMENT down our throats, and too many Dems are falling for it.

This is the first time in decades that the good guys in the intel community are actively lining up behind a Dem candidate and we are on the edge of tossing that advantage away.

[NicoleM]

15. EVERY patriot in this country

should do what they can to get rid of the Bush Cabal. No matter who the nominee is. If they'll only line up behind Kerry, how serious are they about getting rid of Bush?

[blm]

16. You can't tell the intel community who to trust

based on party affiliation. For instance, why would they trust the one guy who was aligned the most with the GOP during his career and now actively cooperates with the media in stifling the greater message of the Kerry campaign?

[NicoleM]

18. Do they care

about what's happening to their country or not? If they do, they'll do what they can to stop it. If they don't, they'll take their ball and go home if Kerry isn't the nominee.

[blm]

21. Intel community trust isn't something easily obtained.

Kerry earned it during his diligent investigations of BCCI and IranContra. They learned the extent of his integrity when the Bush goons in the CIA went after Kerry for years, yet Kerry stood fast.

It's much more than a contest with a ball. Too bad the media has trivialized the process to ballgame analysis.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

17. Few patriots will want to line up behind a guy who said:

"We won't always have the strongest military". Sorry, it's true, and it is one of a number of things that make this Democrat NOT want to line up behind Dean.

[NicoleM]

19. Please.

Are you calling the patriotism of Dean supporters into question?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

20. No. But that comment will not play well in the general election

Regardless of context or intent, it was a stupid thing to say, and few Americans will accept it.

[sangh0]

22. Even more important

it does give the intel people a reason to question Dean's trustworthiness and judgement, which coincidentally, happens to be related to the subject of this thread. Dean's supporters, and their patriotism, have nothing to do with this issue.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

24. Dean's trustworthiness and judgement ends at

medicine and civil unions. After that it's all downhill.

[sangh0]

25. I disagree

I don't like Dean, but I dont think he is corrupt and stupid.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

26. well, the confed. flag comment WAS stupid

and that's on top of other gaffes. Corruption would have to be proved and I certainly have none, although his flip flops on the issues make me wonder about his moral certitude.

[Scott Lee]

35. aaaand THERE it is! badoom pshhhhhh......

I knew you wouldn't let me down!

[NewYorkerfromMass]

37. Good. and here's another:

"We won't always have the strongest military" - And that's not stupid so much as poltically insane.

[blm]

36. He certainly isn't running as he governed.

Yet the media won't report that aspect. Too busy propping him up and silencing Kerry and his team.

[blm]

23. No.

But, there is a certain type of Dean supporter who doesn't care if these men are heard if it benefits Dean's campaign. Mostly the 'movement' type of supporter who understands little about actual governance and recent history.

[rucky]

28. So Why don't they come forward now?

It would be a big boost for Kerry - much needed.

[blm]

29. They've been speaking out on the trail.The press can ignore them now.

They bypass substance that can really damage Bush for the HORSERACE aspect and rhetorical entertainment provided by others.

The ONLY way the press is going to air these spokespeople for Kerry is when he is the nominee. Till then, all they'll feed you is more of the meme Rove wants spread, "The Angry Democrats."

[frank frankly]

33. blm, I want to hear John Kerry saying this

I appreciate your POV, but I am not seeing it from Kerry. Especially in the debates.

Am I missing this from Sen Kerry? No sarcasm meant at all.

[blm]

34. All these guys are campaigning for Kerry. It's the MEDIA that won't

pick up on their appearances. The only way the media is forced into allowing them the camera time is if Kerry is the nominee.

Right now all the networks will allow is horserace talk that benefits Dean. Kerry's issues damage Bush too much, whereas the "Angry Democrat" storyline benefits Bush in the long run.

[frank frankly]

38. okay, but why doesn't Kerry take the lead on this...?

He is running for POTUS, not Joe Wilson or anybody else.

Look, I would LOVE IT if Kerry mentioned this whenever he can, especially on national television, but he doesn't seem to be doing it.

That's my question: why isn't Sen Kerry all over this?

once again, nothing negative meant here. and I know the media are whores and I agree they fear JKerry.

[blm]

42. It takes a long time to present the whole picture.

Drips of this in 3 minute segments would dilute the impact and likely receive responses from the WH pushed by the media.

The ENTIRE picture needs to be drawn for the American people WHEN their attention is focused. That won't happen till after the primaries. BushInc. would have less chance of getting away with it once that picture is drawn.

[oasis]

39. Kick: Content of this thread merits serious consideration.

:kick:

[blm]

41. Yes. People should be well aware the impact of their negative claims

against Kerry and exactly whose ass they are protecting when they target Kerry. They are protecting Bush and Cheney.

[blm]

47. noticing how much attention it won't get....

what does that say about those who claim they want BushInc. exposed?

[9215]

40. The voting booth

is the key, and it looks like the BFEE has that under control. When you vote you don't even know whether it is going to the "right" candidate if it is counted at all.

[blm]

45. Exactly. And we NEED the good guys in the intel community to fight

alongside us on that issue, too. Geez, we have so much work to do and all the oxygen from the media is only going in one direction.

[librechik]

43. sounds like a good team! Why don't they share with everybody

instead of only Kerry. I really don't GAF about the rivalry between the dem candidates. We all need to pull together to end this war and get rid of Shrubco. I haven't endorsed a candidate yet. It seems a little creepy if we have to think of those guys (my favorite experts, BTW)as "belonging" to Kerry as a boost for his campaign. Shouldn't that sort of thing be above politics?

[blm]

44. Who would they trust to present their case?

Hart said last May that neither Dean or Lieberman can handle foreign policy. The intel community is working behind Kerry because they know his 30 year record and his integrity while investigating BCCI, IranContra and CIA drugrunning. They KNOW he can make their case.

They will NOT align behind someone they don't trust. It takes YEARS to build that trust. Especially the intel guys. They aren't partisans.