Reply #123: I didn't attack Clark to promote Gore. I attacked Clark because he [View All]

[drummo]

is dishonest and tries to pretend he was the IWR all along when in fact he was not.

Other Dems, Kerry, Hillary, Edwards, are beaten up because they voted for the war. But Clark gets a free ride. It's not fair and if he runs he should be not benefit from double-standard.
That is independent from what Gore does.

I know how frustrating it is when someone like drummo needs to trash other good Dems,

I didn't trash him. I give you Clark's own words to show why I say what I say. Trashing someone is based on falsehoods. This is not based on falsehoods. Unless you can prove that Clark was misquoted by the Times and the Globe.

especially a guy like Clark who's working SO hard to get Dems elected in 2006.

The issue was the IWR not what he is doing to get Dems elected in 2006. If he runs for prez in 2008 that will have nothing to do with 2006.

And purportedly because it's the only way drummo knows to promote his own guy (if in fact that's his purpose... ya gotta wonder).

1.That's a bold faced lie. I promoted Gore on many threads without even mentioning Clark.

2.It's not about Gore. It's about Clark and his dishonesty as he tries to pretend he is better than the Dems who voted for the IWR.


And I know Rwanda is important, not just for the horrible loss of life, but for what it says about how a Democratic administration would react to a similar situation in the future (we know from Darfur how the Repubs react, or rather don't... I can only HOPE we would do better, but Rwanda doesn't give me much confidence).

If you want to know Gore would not send US troops to Rwanda if it was happening today. He never flip-flopped on that issue. And the US military is not a toy. You don't send them everywhere where vaious groups are killing each other. By the same token the US military should be in Sudan or should have been in Siera Leone or Somalia.


Clark did on the IWR.

Mostly, I KNOW how hard you try to live by Clark's admonition that Democrats must not attack other Democrats.

Bullshit. Clark himself attacked Gore after he dared to endorsed Dean.
He even said that the election should be decided by the people not by the powerful. And that's just because Gore endorsed Dean -- as if by doing so Gore would have stolen the votes.
So the first who should have lived up to that supposed admonition
was Clark himself.

People like drummo only stir up shit like this.

Actually you stir it up by spinning Clark's words (remember "a" vs. "the")and coming up with contradictory explanations as to why Clark did not flip-flop.
On Monday it is "don't trust the NYT" on Tuesday it is "Clarke bobbled the question".

I've seen a couple other good Clarkies who usually hold back attacking Gore because of drummo's crap about Clark.

Again, it's not about Gore. I bring Gore up with regard to Clark's flip-flop on the IWR only because Gore did not flip-flop so you could see the difference between someone who was indeed consistent and someone who was not consistent but claims he was.

Maybe that's what he's really after; maybe he just can't see the big picture of what's good for Dems and for the nation.

I certainly can see that someone who played political games with the IWR would not be good for the nation. We don't need people in the White House who uses national security issues for their political gain and are too coward to admit that they were wrong and pretend that they are better than the other Dems who were wrong.

But we need to work extra hard not to get baited into fighting each other.

You think you shouldn't fight against politicians who pretend to be better than others by lying about their own record about national security issues?

Now that tells a lot about your principles.