What is Howard Dean afraid of?

[Larry Gude]

So...

...you are saying...

Larry, I'm not big on parabreaks or spell checking

...like Dean, that you'd rather be difficult than easy to understand???

Plus is Dems4 m or f?

 

[dems4me]

By the way -- why does it say "one of the gang" under my screenname here?

 

[Larry Gude]

You are...

...hopeless....

 

[dems4me]

Actually Larry I wish Dean at times was a little hard to understand. Some of the things he comes out with is realtive to a loose canon. But, he's the best I can sift through of the other Democratic primaries. Like vrail, I stick with my party and their views. Now, if Hillary was to run for pres. or vice president, I'm jumping ship on Dean. Just trying to help get the democrats back into the white house and hopefully more in the Senate and Congress.

Ooops ! almost forgot the paragrah break -- just for you --

How's the tooth feeling now? Has the novicane worn off yet?

 

[Larry Gude]

Tooth hell...

...one whole quad of my face!!!

Thanks for asking.

Howard Dean works for Satan.

Hillary is Satan.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by Larry Gude
Hillary is Satan.

I'm going to take a beating over this buuuuuuut....

Hillary's better than Howard Dean. At least she has some concept of what's going on in the world.

Joe Lieberman and Dick Gephardt are the only Dem candidates that have any credibilty, in my opinion. The rest are an embarrassment and show just how low the Democratic party has sunk.

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by dems4me vrail -- the meetings were not out of national security but to form a national energy policy. The secret meetings held in Washington was about our national energy policy not national security, of which Ken Lay and Enron got to participate in as with other high ranking energy conglomerates that are all pals of Bush. He then claims presidential privillged. Why is it we can not see what when on in the meeting especially if its creating new energy policies? Doesn't policies and law have to be run through congress and the Senate first? Its things like this that makes me think Bush is shady.

I think it could be argued that our energy concerns are directly related to national security. However, as others have indicated this was a strategy meeting in an effort to define a policy worth pursuing. It would still have to stand legislative approval. Normally strategic planning meetings aren't public endeavors and due not formally establish our nation's policy. I am sure the Democratic candidates have had similar meetings that won't be brought before the public.

Ken, what field of law would you like to persue?

Labor, but it all is fascinating (if involved in criminal law I would like to prosecute).

 

[vraiblonde]

Dems, THIS is one of the reason I can't stand Howard Dean. His bombastic fear mongering is absurd. He thinks George Bush is so "dangerous", where was he when Clinton was selling our weapons technology to the Chinese? He didn't think having drug lords hanging out at the White House was "dangerous"?

Hell, with everyone kicking off the way they did, merely being a part of the Clinton Administration was "dangerous".

BTW, click the underlined THIS to see the article I'm referring to.

 

[Larry Gude]

Beating...

Hillary's better than Howard Dean. At least she has some concept of what's going on in the world.

I don't think anyone could argue otherwise.

Next thing you know Howard will be disparaging...fill in the blank...

 

[Ken King]

Hey Michelle, where did you go?

 

[Bruzilla]

I don't understand how someone can say that Bush and Cheney were wrong for not disclosing the energy policy discussions, but it's okay for Dean to withold his records of meetings. Both the White House and Dean have said the same thing - they want people to feel free to offer honest opinions during these kinds of discussions, and they won't if they feel that their words can be used against them in the future.

BTW, the Enron, Global Crossing, MCI, etc., scandals were brewing long before Bush became president. They resulted from the Dodd/Lieberman bill that allowed auditing houses to have a financial stake in the companies they were auditing. They got caught on Bush's watch but they had been cheating for several years before that.

 

[SamSpade]

"They got caught on Bush's watch but they had been cheating for several years before that."

Getting *caught* on Bush's watch would tend to exonerate Bush, and not denigrate him.

Is it just some kind of knee-jerk reaction, that when rich people get caught doing something bad, it's always the Republicans' fault, even when *they're* the ones puttin' em in jail?

 

[vraiblonde]

Bush called Lay "Kenny-boy" and that's good enough for libs. Never mind that Enron contributed big $$$ to Clinton's campaign as well.

Dean's Mad Cow comments are enough to disqualify him from office. Hell, he's even a doctor, spewing that nonsense.

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by SamSpade
Getting *caught* on Bush's watch would tend to exonerate Bush, and not denigrate him. ]

There you go again - thinking like a rational person.

 

[dems4me]

I'm here. I agree with vrail on Hillary but I don't think she'll run this year, at least not without creating a track record in the Senate for New York. Edwards on the other hand was just elected for South Carolina, has not finished his term and on Face the Nation or some other show, said he just knows everyone in South Carolina that voted for him would vote for him as President. These are distinctly two different jobs. So, with that being against Edwards and democratic opponents using that against him, how can Hillary now do the same thing and accuse Edwards of that? I think the Democratic National Party or someone should have organized the candidates better so the door would be more clearly open for Hillary.

Ken, I'm here.

I again agree to disagree on comparing Cheney's secret national energy policy meeting to Dean's - one is on a national level the other is on a state level and did not have the economic downspiral that Enron, and other's created.

V-rail. I read your "This" link, and I agree with Dean on these even if he is our President and we are in a Bush-induced war, oops I forgot Mission Accomplished in May. As for the war in Afganistan, when was the last we heard of anything going on over there. So...with that said, are we at war or are we not?

Anyone have any interesting New Year's resolutions?

 

[vraiblonde]

Originally posted by dems4me
did not have the economic downspiral that Enron, and other's created.

Enron did NOT create our economic downspiral.

I agree with Dean on these even if he is our President and we are in a Bush-induced war

This is not a "Bush" induced war - this is a "terrorist" and "dictator" induced war. If the UN had done it's job, none of this would have happened. If Bill Clinton had paid more attention to terrorism, 9-11 wouldn't have happened. If you think otherwise, share your herb with the rest of us.

As for the war in Afganistan, when was the last we heard of anything going on over there.

Turn on the TV and pick up a newspaper. We're having great success over there.
http://search.news.yahoo.com/search/news/?c=&p=afghanistan

 

[Ken King]

Originally posted by dems4me
I'm here.

...we are in a Bush-induced war, oops I forgot Mission Accomplished in May. As for the war in Afganistan, when was the last we heard of anything going on over there. So...with that said, are we at war or are we not?

Glad to see you made it back.

“Mission Accomplished” - Somehow the media and anti-war types have spun this to death and wrongly associated this to mean that the war was over and won.

The battle group that the USS Lincoln was a part of was absolutely correct when they flew that banner. For them (the battle group) they had successfully accomplished their assigned task. They were returning to home port after meeting the objectives assigned. By definition, that is “Mission Accomplished”.

At no time did anyone say that the war was over. Everyone, or at least anyone that his even a minute understanding of combat operations, knows that when the President said that major combat activities had been completed that we would have many months of mop up operations to include the capture or killing of Saddam, his sons, and his henchmen. These are still ongoing. What was meant by those words was that we would no longer have the continuous bombardment by massive air power, artillery, and cruise missiles.

With regard to Afghanistan, I have heard a little about it but that is a different beast. An interim government has been established and the hunt for Osama is still ongoing as well. We have had some good successes over there and there will be more.

It is my firm belief that if we had a Democratic President in office throughout this mess we would have had nothing accomplished and in my opinion we would have suffered additional attacks on our soil.

I might be a moderate but I thank God that we have a strong believer in the protection of our country in office at this time. There are many dangers we currently face that have built over the years and it is time to remove them. George Bush is doing that and let me add that he has been doing one fine job of it.

 

[dems4me]

I disagree V-rail. I think if Bill Clinton had stayed in office, 9-11 would have been prevented. Bush gave alot of people high ranking jobs that they had no experience in - only as a result of helping him fund his campaign or for arguing his case in the Florida elections. But we can't all be arm-chair monday morning quarterbacks. There is no way we can proove one way or the other. That's my opinion.

Enron and other corporate corruption, market manipulation, etc... had a detrimental impact on the stock market. As for the new economic growth we have had in the past few months, I think Bush and the other Republicans are the ones that put us in that hole. I think a 4 year old could have created a solution to improve the debt that was caused - the tax breaks only worsenend our deficit and not many people hired people as a result of their breaks.

There are other dictators in other countries but we are not getting involved over there and completely taking over their country -- why? because they are not oil producing countries. It was a War for Oil.

 

[Bruzilla]

I think Bush's "Mission Accomplished" banner was 100% correct. The purpose of the war was to oust the Hussin regime, and by that date the mission had been accomplished. Now we're dealing with the aftermath of the war, just liek we had to deal with errant Nazis and Japanese personnel following World War II, or deal with Soviet incursions into Greece, etc.

If we were to listen to the petty arguments and digs from the Left we would also have to concede that World War II didn't really end until about 1957.

 

[SamSpade]

"As for the war in Afganistan, when was the last we heard of anything going on over there. "

**PLENTY**. Read a newspaper much, lately?