Forums dot lukpac.org

Did Karl Rove feed these questions to Russert? Does one sense a slight right-leaning tendency in Russert's questions? Nice that he managed to work in a word about Clinton's impeachment, too.

[Bolding by me.]

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3849657/

NBC News

MEET THE PRESS

Sunday, January 4, 2004

GUESTS: WESLEY CLARK, Democratic presidential candidate; DAVID BRODER of the Washington Post; DAVID YEPSENof the Des Moines Register; WILLIAM SAFIRE of the New York Times and JOHN HARWOOD of the Wall Street Journal.

MODERATOR/PANELIST: Tim Russert - NBC News

This is a rush transcript provided for the information and convenience of the press. Accuracy is not guaranteed. In case of doubt, please check with MEET THE PRESS - NBC NEWS(202)885-4598 (Sundays: (202)885-4200)

Meet the Press (NBC News) - Sunday, January 4, 2004

MR. TIM RUSSERT: Our issues this Sunday: Just two weeks from tomorrow, the presidential nomination process begins in Iowa. Howard Dean leads the Democratic field. Can this man overtake him? Our guest, former NATO supreme allied commander, now candidate for president, General Wesley Clark. And this afternoon, The Des Moines Register Democratic candidates presidential debate. What can we expect? We're joined by one of questioners, David Yepsen of The Register, as well as David Broder of The Washington Post, John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal, William Safire of The New York Times and Karen Tumulty from Time magazine.

But first with us now from Manchester, New Hampshire, is General Wesley Clark. General, good morning.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Good morning, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: The campaign against George W. Bush, let me show you and our viewers what you said about the president. "Clark referred to Bush as `a reckless, radical, heartless leader.'" Why such harsh words from a general about a commander in chief?

GEN. CLARK: Well, Tim, that's the truth. We went into Iraq. It was reckless. We didn't have our allies. We didn't have the right number of troops. We didn't have a plan for what happens next. And we can see the results. Radical, because he's not taking care of the American people. He's pursuing a radical rightwing agenda of tax cuts for the wealthy. Just today there is a story that they're going to try to reduce the budget deficit by cutting veterans' benefits, going after people who need job training, at a time when we've got nine million people unemployed in this country, going after housing for people with low incomes. That's a radical agenda.

Heartless, because if he had any sympathy and compassion for people at all, he wouldn't take those kinds of leadership steps. This man is pursuing a right-wing, radical agenda for America. It's not what the American people want; it's not the way our country should be led.

MR. RUSSERT: General, you also said something else. And this is how the Baton Rouge Advocate captured it: "Clark said the president `didn't do his duty' to protect American from attack on September 11, 2001. `I think the record's going to show he could have done a lot more to have prevented 9/11 than he did.'" What else could George Bush possibly have done, and why didn't anyone else in Congress or in the military suggest things that could have protected us on 9/11?

GEN. CLARK: Well, when this administration came to office, Tim, they were told that the greatest threat to American security was Osama bin Laden. And yet, on 9/11, there was still no government plan, no plan sanctioned by the president of the United States, no plan directed to go after that threat of Osama bin Laden. The ship of state was on autopilot. People in agencies were doing what they had been told to do. But the top leaders in the government hadn't focused the resources of the United States of America to take action against the greatest threat facing America. And that's the job of the president of the United States, especially when it comes to national security. The buck stops on his desk. He's the man, or woman, who's supposed to pull things together and get the focus right. He didn't do it.

MR. RUSSERT: When you were supreme NATO commander, were you aware of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaeda, and did you warn anyone about the threat?

GEN. CLARK: The information was coming out of the Central Command's area. What my responsibility was, was to take the measures in my area. In fact, we did have threats by Osama bin Laden. We were under high alert starting in late summer of '98, all the way through. We were very concerned about this. We had continuing discussions with this in our commanders conferences with the secretary of defense.

MR. RUSSERT: Republicans will say that four months after September 11, General, you were still praising President Bush, saying things like, "I tremendously admire, I think we all should, the great work done by our commander and chief, our president, President George Bush." And now that you're running for president, you've changed your tune.

GEN. CLARK: Well, when I made that speech, I made that speech talking about Afghanistan. And I support the action in Afghanistan up to the point at which the president didn't follow through and get Osama bin Laden. We should have gone after the Taliban. We should have stayed there. We should have worked Afghanistan. We had Osama bin Laden in a box, and we should have stayed there in the spring of 2002 and finished the job against him. But four months afterwards, we didn't. That was the point at which the United States of America began to cut back its resourcing and direct all of the internal intention to going after Saddam Hussein. I remember being overseas in late January of 2002 and I was already getting the rumblings from inside the Pentagon and from my friends there, saying, "Oh, well, you know, Afghanistan, that's a holding action. You know, we've cut any additional forces going there. We're going to let them do the best they can, but we've got to get ready to go after Iraq." And there was no reason to have gone after Iraq at that point. Saddam Hussein wasn't connected with 9/11. He didn't have an imminent threat to use weapons of mass destruction or use them against us. There just wasn't an imminent reason to divert attention from terrorism to go after Iraq. There was no reason to do that, but this administration chose to do it. It was a mistake.

MR. RUSSERT: You have said, "I would have gotten Osama bin Laden." How are you so sure you could have done that?

GEN. CLARK: He was there. He was in Tora Bora and he was boxed in. And what I would have done before I started the operation in Afghanistan is look for a success strategy. After you've had experience with military planning and the way political military actions operate, you know that you have to start at the back end and work forward. So it's: What are the conditions you want to have achieved when the operation's over? What I would have said is, "We want to take the Taliban out of power and we want to bag Osama bin Laden and the top leadership in al-Qaeda." And then I would have directed the military to plan for that result and work backwards to when do you start the operation, how do you open the operation, and so forth. I don't think that was done in this case. I think in this case, they started at the wrong end of the operation. The president reportedly said, "Hey, I want bombs falling within 30 days." He wanted to have a perception of action. He didn't have a thoughtful, effective plan to deal with the threat of terrorism. And this administration still doesn't, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: In terms of Iraq, you said this the other day. "When I am president, I will go over to Iraq and it won't be to deliver turkeys in the middle of the night." What does that mean?

GEN. CLARK: When I go over to Iraq, I'm going to talk with the people that are on the ground. I'm going to consult with the military leaders. I'm going to consult with the Iraqi leaders. And we'll have a political success strategy that turns this problem back to the Iraqi people in a way that brings us out of there with success, with honor and gets our forces back and reconstituted to meet the real national security challenges facing America.

MR. RUSSERT: Isn't that what the president did, met with military leaders, met with Iraqi leaders?

GEN. CLARK: Well, he was on the ground for about two hours, as I read the report. I don't think he had any substantive discussions with either military leaders or Iraqi leaders during that period. He only met, as far as I could determine, with some of the very pro-American Iraqi leaders like Chalabi. To my knowledge, he did not meet with Sistani. There's been no real discussion with the Shia leadership and certainly not by high-level U.S. authorities.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe the situation is secure enough to risk the life of the president of the United States to do that?

GEN. CLARK: I think that arrangements could have been made to hold those kinds of meetings had there been a desire to do so. Yes, I do.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me talk about the Democratic presidential race that you're now in. Last October 10, you said you were the front-runner in the race. And now in all the national polls, Governor Howard Dean is outpolling you two-, three-to-one. He's ahead of you considerably there in New Hampshire. What happened?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think what happened is that as we got into this race, we had to build the foundation in the key primary states. When I first went into the race, I got a lot of support from a lot of different news media and my name was splashed across the United States. But we've done the quiet, behind-the-scenes work in states like New Hampshire, South Carolina, Tennessee, Arizona and across Oklahoma and across the country to put the foundation in place. So I think we're doing very, very well. We've raised a tremendous amount of money. We've got a very strong message. We're drawing increasingly enthusiastic crowds. So we feel like we're well on our way.

MR. RUSSERT: General, you had this to say. "Having other people tell you what to do is no substitute for having been there in the arena yourself. ... You need a candidate who's got foreign policy expertise." Do you believe that Howard Dean has the necessary foreign policy expertise to be an effective president?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I'll say this to you, Tim. If George W. Bush is qualified to be president of the United States, then any of the Democratic candidates are more qualified. I just don't believe that at this time in American history the Democratic Party can field candidates who can only represent the education, health, job and compassionate sides of the party. We have to be a full-spectrum party. We have to deal with the challenges facing America at home and the challenges facing America abroad. And that's why I'm running.

MR. RUSSERT: But Governor Dean, in your mind, is lacking foreign policy expertise?

GEN. CLARK: That's right.

MR. RUSSERT: You had this to say as well. "I didn't have as much practice skiing as the governor did. [Dean] was out there skiing when I was recovering from my wounds in Vietnam." That's pretty tough.

GEN. CLARK: Well, it was in--yes. But let's put it in context, Tim. I was asked in a radio call-in show about having a skiing contest with Governor Dean. And sometimes, as you understand--I mean, politics is easy but humor is tough. And that was an attempt at a little bit of humor that some people didn't laugh at.

MR. RUSSERT: But is there some resentment the fact that you went and served in Vietnam and...

GEN. CLARK: No, I don't feel any resentment of that, no.

MR. RUSSERT: None?

GEN. CLARK: I mean, he made his decision. He'll take responsibility for it.

MR. RUSSERT: Governor Dean also said this the other day. "...the Democratic Leadership Council...the Republican wing of the Democratic party." Do you believe the DLC is the Republican wing of the Democratic Party?

GEN. CLARK: No, I don't. But I do believe this, Tim, that if you are in the Democratic Party, and you do believe that elections should be about the issues and about the candidates themselves, then you shouldn't be trying to win Democratic primaries by the amount of money that you spend in the states. And I think all of the candidates in this race should abide by the state spending caps that--just as though they had received federal matching funds. I don't think they should be attempting to win by outspending opponents. They should be out politicking opponents.

MR. RUSSERT: As you know, the Democratic Leadership Council was once headed by then-Governor Bill Clinton of Arkansas. Is Governor Dean insulting former President Clinton?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think that's really up to the president to decide. But I'll tell you this. I very much admire what Bill Clinton did as president of the United States. In foreign policy, he helped structure us to face a very uncertain world. We had success in the Balkans. We saved a million and a half Kosovar Albanians from being killed, ethnically cleansed, thanks to his leadership. And at home we created 22 million jobs. And for the first time in a generation, we began to lift people out of poverty. He was a terrific president. He accomplished some great things. And I think Howard Dean or any other Democrat should be very proud to follow in his footsteps.

MR. RUSSERT: He was also impeached, general.

GEN. CLARK: He was. But he wasn't convicted.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe he was appropriately impeached?

GEN. CLARK: No, I don't.

MR. RUSSERT: Are you concerned that people may suggest that by embracing Bill Clinton you're embracing all his values?

GEN. CLARK: No, I'm not concerned by that. I think you have to look at the record of what he did as a president. I think he did some great things as president of the United States.

MR. RUSSERT: You are the first Democratic candidate to use President Clinton in your commercials. That was obviously very deliberate on your part.

GEN. CLARK: Well, actually, I'm very proud to have received the presidential Medal of Freedom, Tim, and it was a public ceremony. It was given to 14 people at that time. And it was also given to another military officer, Admiral Crowe. And I'm very proud of having received that. So, yes, we did use that.

MR. RUSSERT: Is there any downside by trying to associate yourself with Bill Clinton?

GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, I'm not associating myself with Bill Clinton deliberately. All I'm doing is advertising to the American people who I am and what I did. But I'm not concerned about downsides with Bill Clinton because I think he did a great job as president.

MR. RUSSERT: Has President Clinton suggested he may endorse you?

GEN. CLARK: No, and I haven't asked him to do that. President Clinton is a national figure. He's the leader of the party. I'd be very honored to have Bill Clinton's endorsement after I win the nomination.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me go through this whole exchange with Governor Dean that you had about the vice presidency. In December you said this. "...as a matter of fact, [Howard Dean] did offer me the vice presidency...it was sort of discussed and dangled before I made the decision to run." "It was a meeting that we had...This was in early September." Governor Dean responded "...I can tell you flat out" that "I did not ask [Gen. Clark] to be by running mate." Who's telling the truth?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I don't think we need to play semantic games with this. I stand by what I said. And I also will tell you this, Tim. I'm not going to be Howard Dean's vice president.

MR. RUSSERT: You said something else: "I'm not going to be Howard Dean's Dick Cheney. We've already tried that model of government and it doesn't work. That's what misled America thus far."

GEN. CLARK: That's exactly right. We need people who are experienced not only in the domestic issues but in the foreign policy issues.

MR. RUSSERT: Another general who entered politics, William Sherman, was asked whether or not he would seek elective office. He said: "If nominated, I will not accept. If elected, I will not serve." If General Clark is nominated as vice president, will you accept?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I've said I'm not going to be the vice president, and that's what I stand by. I'm running to be president of the United States. This country needs a higher standard of leadership, Tim, and to get that higher standard, I'm going to have to be the commander in chief and the president of the United States. That's why I'm running.

MR. RUSSERT: But General Sherman had a very understandable formula: "If nominated, I will not accept." Is that your view?

GEN. CLARK: I'm saying that I'm not going to be the vice president. I'm not going accept that nomination. I can't make it any more clearer than that.

MR. RUSSERT: So if nominated, you will not accept the vice presidency?

GEN. CLARK: I'm running to be president of the United States. I am not running to be vice president, and I do not intend to accept that nomination, and I will not.

MR. RUSSERT: Absolutely.

GEN. CLARK: That's absolutely the facts.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me show you what a Clark strategist said about some television ads you are running. He said that he "did not dispute that Clark is running on his resume. He said the ads avoid policy specifics because most voters are not following them." Do you believe that there is a need for you to be specific about policy, particularly on the economy and taxes?

GEN. CLARK: Of course, and I am very specific on the economy. But, Tim, you and I both know that when people are voting for president of the United States, they're looking at character, they're looking at value, they're looking at resume, they're looking at the person. The policies are important and they're out there. They're all over my Web site, clark04.com. I talk about them in every speech. But in a 30-second or a 60-second ad, what's really important for me to convey to the Democratic Party in which I'm running is what I did as a person, who I am, what my military leadership meant for this country and for the individuals who served with me. Because frankly, let's be honest: It's been a long time since we had a general who came out and ran in a Democratic primary. And we're in the process of introducing me to the Democratic electorate. That's what these commercials are all about. There's plenty of policies out there, too, and I'm proud of the policies we have. We've got some very good ones. And I'll fight to get them implemented.

MR. RUSSERT: Tomorrow you will address the whole issue of tax cuts. What will you say?

GEN. CLARK: Well, we're going to have a major policy pronouncement tomorrow. We're going to be talking about new tax code, a way of simplifying the tax code to make it fairer, more progressive. It's going to be major step forward in tax reform.

MR. RUSSERT: Will it be translated by Republicans as a tax increase?

GEN. CLARK: It's going to be translated by Americans as a fairer and simpler tax code. And that's the way it's going to communicate, and it's going to help our country meet the challenges ahead.

MR. RUSSERT: Will some people be paying more taxes?

GEN. CLARK: Some people will be receiving more benefits and it'll be more fair and more progressive than the current system.

MR. RUSSERT: General, as you know, there's a big debate in Iowa this afternoon. You will not be participating. Was it a mistake by you to bypass the Iowa caucuses?

GEN. CLARK: Absolutely not.

MR. RUSSERT: Why?

GEN. CLARK: Because to participated in Iowa would have taken 20 to 30 days and $4 million starting in mid-October, and I just didn't have the time to do it. I had a lot of support in Iowa, and I still have a lot of support in Iowa. And when I'm the nominee, that'll be the first place that I campaign. But, Tim, just to be practical, I couldn't split my efforts or the resources starting in mid-October between Iowa and New Hampshire. It just wasn't practical.

MR. RUSSERT: If Howard Dean wins the Iowa caucuses and then a week later wins the New Hampshire primary and you run third in New Hampshire, is your race finished?

GEN. CLARK: No. I think it's just beginning. We're going to be very strong across the South, the Midwest and in the upper Midwest. We've got great organizations. We've got great support. And I'm the one candidate in this race who can carry the South for the Democratic Party. Over the last few days, we did our True Grits Tour and we swung through eight Southern states, 10 cities. We picked up a lot of support. We brought lots of local people in and I got nothing but enthusiasm for my candidacy. We've got five Senate seats in the South by opening up in the fall of 2004. This is a crucial election not only for the presidency but for the future of the United States Congress and the future of the United States of America. And our party needs a candidate who can carry the South. I can do that.

MR. RUSSERT: Can Howard Dean carry the South?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I don't know. That remains to be seen. But I know that I can.

MR. RUSSERT: General Clark, thank you for joining us. Be safe on the campaign trail. And congratulations on becoming a grandpa.

GEN. CLARK: Thank you very much, Tim. Good to be with you.

MR. RUSSERT: Coming next, just 15 days before the Iowa caucuses, insights and analysis from David Yepsen of The Des Moines Register, David Broder of The Washington Post, John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal, William Safire of The New York Times, Karen Tumulty of Time magazine. They are all next on MEET THE PRESS.

From the always-amusing Pundit Pap feature at American Politics Journal:

Meet the Press
Has Clark put pit bull RNC whore on a short leash?

Players: Tim Russert, former NATO Supreme Commander Wesley Clark

Tim Russert, king of Beltway insider "presstitutes," seemed a little subdued this morning. Yes, he was trying to gently bash Wesley Clark, and he failed from the get-go. Here's our "Shorter Meet the Press in 3 Minutes" transcript:

Tim: You're attacking Mr. Bush as "reckless" and "radical." My God, man, he's the Commander-in-chief!
Gen. Clark: He has a heartless right-wing radical agenda and he's screwed the poor and middle class. It's not what the people want.
Tim: You said he didn't do his duty to protect Americans from 9/11 -- but the man couldn't have possibly done more!
Gen. Clark: He was warned by Clinton and Berger. He knew Al Qaeda was a threat. And he did not focus on the greatest threat against our national security. The buck stops with him, Skippy.
Tim: Did YOU warn anyone when you were NATO SC?
Gen. Clark: You bet we did. We were on alert. We discussed Osama with the then-secretary of defense.
Tim: You praised Bush a couple years ago! And now you've changed your tune, you flip-flopping flip-flopper!
Gen. Clark: You must not have read the full transcript, Junior -- I was talking about Afghanistan. And what happened later? We didn't stay and finish the job. The Taliban is making a comeback.
Tim: How are you sure you could've gotten Osama?
Gen. Clark: We had him boxed in -- and I would have had a success strategy with specific goals: getting the Taliban out of power and taking Osama and his henchmen into custody. I don't think Smirk wanted that -- I think he just wanted bombs falling and had no effective plan to stop the terrorists.
Tim: You made fun of my man Bush's visit on Thanksgiving! Horrors!
Gen. Clark: We had no plan in Iraq either, and it's a mess.
Tim: But... but... he met with Iraqi leaders between the dressing and cranberry sauce!
Gen. Clark: The meetings weren't substantial -- and he should have arranged for real, substantial meetings.
Tim: Howard Dean is cleaning you clock. What happened?
Gen. Clark: I got in late, got a lot of coverage. Got solid support, and did not have the foundation in place in New Hampshire or Iowa, but now we're well on the way.
Tim: Do you believe Dean has foreign policy expertise?
Gen. Clark: If George W. Bush is qualified to be p o t u s, then ANY of the Democratic candidates in MORE qualified. And we're qualified at home and abroad.
Tim: But you're still tough on Dens.
Gen. Clark: Yes.
Tim: You blasted Dean for skiing while you were recovering from your wounds.
Gen. Clark: I was poking some fun at him, and some didn't see it as a joke. Dean decided not to serve, and he has to take responsibility for it.
Tim: What's all this about the DLC being the Republican wing of the party?
Gen. Clark: The problem is trying to outspend opponents.
Tim: I want you to distance yourself from that... that... that Clinton man!
Gen. Clark: I'd be proud to follow in his footsteps.
Tim: He was IMPEACHED!
Gen. Clark: He wasn't convicted, and the impeachment was inappropriate.
Tim: But.. but... but... VALUES! MORALS! You're ASSOCIATING yourself with the man.
Gen. Clark: Baloney. And I'll say it again: he was a great president. He's the leading figure in our party. He's a great man.
Tim: Is he going to endorse you?
Gen. Clark: I'd like him to do so -- after I clinch the nomination!
Tim: You and Howard Dean are fighting over whether or not he invited you to be his running mate.
Gen. Clark: I'm not playing that game.
Tim: Will you stand by your pledge not to be vice-president?
Gen. Clark: I'm running for President. At this time, I'm not intending to accept the veep nod.
Tim: One of your strategists said that most voters are not following specific policy issues.
Gen. Clark: They are, Tim, but they're also looking at the person, his or her character, his or her main message. I'll tell them who I am, what I did, what my military service meant. It's been a long time since a general ran for President, and I'll fight like hell to get my message across.
Tim: What's your new tax plan?
Gen. Clark: I will propose a fairer and simpler tax code.
Tim: Will some people be paying more taxes?
Gen. Clark: Some people will be getting more benefits.
Tim: Was not participating in Iowa a blunder?
Gen. Clark: No, given the fact that I entered early -- it was impractical to split the effort between Iowa and NH.
Tim: If you lose NH and SC, is it over?
Gen. Clark: No way. I can carry the South, I can draw in new party members, I can help Democratic candidates ride my coattails.
Tim: Can Dean carry the south?
Gen. Clark: Remains to be seen -- but I can.

Clark seems to get better with each appearance on pundit TV. He managed to turn Tim's Rove-esque talking points 180 degrees around without being too nasty to Tim -- in fact, Tim shifted the subject anytime Clark sounded in control. Clark also made it clear that he is not going to bash the other candidates, particularly Dean -- which serves to make Lieberman, Gephardt and Kerry sound angry and desperate. Good move, Wesley.

And Tim, who had already had one previous encounter with Clark, was on far better behavior than usual. Oddly, he didn't try to ambush Clark with specific quotes from his past -- one of his favorite tactics. We think one reason is that Clark would have kicked Russert's "Assman," as the joke among political junkies and press professionals goes. For those of you who missed it, about a month ago, Clark appeared on the FOX News Channel. One of their daytime anchors, David Asman, tried to twist some statements Clark made -- and Clark relentlessly jumped down Asman's throat, rightly and angrily chastising the Murdoch-Ailes whore for trying to twist his words. The video clip of Clark opening up his ten-megaton volley against Asman made the rounds of the Internet that very day -- e-mailed to many (including APJ) with the subject "Wesley Clark kicks FAUX News in the Assman."

Either that, or Tim genuinely respects Clark. But given his track record with Democratic candidates, our gut is that Tim is scared that Clark would tear out his spleen through his left nostril if Tim tried any of his usual tricks.

From the ever reliable Pandagon.net

Questions From Russert

RUSSERT: Gen. Clark, Howard Dean said he likes Denny's. Do you agree with him?

CLARK: Well, we had a Perkins nearby.

RUSSERT: So, do you like Denny's?

CLARK: I've never really been there. I think maybe once when I visited a friend and we wanted to get an early breakfast.

RUSSERT: Did you like it then?

CLARK: I guess, I don't really remember. Never thought about it.

RUSSERT: Well, Dean thought about it. Enough to say that he liked it.

CLARK: I'm not Howard Dean.

RUSSERT: In that vein, would you do Howard Dean's wife?

CLARK: I'm married. And I love my wife.

RUSSERT: Yes, but would you love his wife?

CLARK: No, Tim. I don't know her, I've not met her, it's really not germane to the campaign.

RUSSERT: So you're leaving the door open?

CLARK: I said no.

RUSSERT: But does that mean that the door is open to some Clark-on-Dean action if the Deans get a divorce, and you do, too, and you meet up at a Denny's, and you end up banging her in the bathroom?

CLARK: For Christ's sake, Russert-

RUSSERT: She's a Jew. You probably don't want to bring that up.

CLARK: I said no!

RUSSERT: So you don't like Jewish women.

CLARK: I like Jewish women fine! There's nothing wrong with Jewish women!

RUSSERT: So you'd "Do the Dean"?

CLARK: I said no. Can we move on to something else?

RUSSERT: Just to make sure, you'd never sleep with a Jewish woman?

CLARK: I said that I would never sleep with Howard Dean's wife.

RUSSERT: Do you think she's ugly?

CLARK: What? No! I don't know! What kind of freak are you?

RUSSERT: You don't know. Thank you, Gen. Clark. Moving on, would you ever be Howard Dean's vice president?

CLARK: I've already said, unequivocally, that I'd never be a vice president for anyone. I'm running for president.

RUSSERT: So, would you leave the door open if he asked you?

CLARK: No.

RUSSERT: What if he got nominated, and his VP candidate quit, and he said that he really wanted someone who's last name rhymed with "bark"?

CLARK: No.

RUSSERT: Would you be Joe Lieberman's VP candidate?

CLARK: No.

RUSSERT: Because he's Jewish.

CLARK: Because I'm not going to be anyone's vice presidential candidate.

RUSSERT: You know, the rest of the candidates aren't Jewish. You may be an anti-Semite, but you could be their vice presidential candidate and not have to deal with any of their Jew crap.

CLARK: I'm not an anti-Semite. I don't want to be a vice presidential candidate.

RUSSERT: You don't want to be subordinate to anyone.

CLARK: No, Tim, and thank you for bringing that-

RUSSERT: Like the Jews were to the Pharoah.

CLARK: I was a General in the United States Army, and I feel like I have the most to offer people in the position of leadership.

RUSSERT: So, you're no Moses. You think you're God, Yahweh.

CLARK: I don't think I'm God.

RUSSERT: So the Jews have a false religion? Is that what you're saying?

CLARK: This interview is over.

RUSSERT: Hm.

CLARK: No, I'm serious, this interview is fucking over.

RUSSERT: What Jew say?

CLARK: The interview is over, you deaf bastard.

RUSSERT: Jew seem very angry?

CLARK: Are you trying to do a European accent?

RUSSERT: Jew can't hear me?

CLARK: Jesus, Tim, are you saying "Jew"?

RUSSERT: What, Jew don't know? Jew uncomfortable? Ever had a D-Jew-I?

CLARK: [Leaves set.]

RUSSERT: Up next, we'll discuss the Iowa primaries, and why Howard Dean has yet to address the boffo box office of Lord of the Rings: Return of the King.

Infamous liberal sympathizer Tim Russert vs. Wesley Clark, Round II, from this past Sunday:

MR. RUSSERT: And we are in the Bedford Village Inn, live from Bedford, New Hampshire, this morning talking with one of the contenders for the Democratic nomination for president, former General Wesley Clark.

Welcome back to MEET THE PRESS.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Thank you, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me update you and our viewers on the very latest in terms of viewer attitudes towards this race. Here is the Zogby/Reuters/MSNBC tracking poll: John Kerry, 30; Howard Dean, 23; Wesley Clark, 13; John Edwards, 9; Joe Lieberman, 9; undecided, 13. Some polls have Kerry up by as many as 20. What's your sense of the race?

GEN. CLARK: Well, my sense of the race is there are still a lot of undecided voters out there and people are really concerned about the country's future, not only Iraq but also the problem of jobs and how to struggle and get by in America. So they're looking at all of us, and I'm just having a great time talking to the voters and telling them my story and listening to theirs.

MR. RUSSERT: The chairman of the Democratic Party, Terry McAuliffe, said this the other day. "After Feb 3"--a week from Tuesday--"if you haven't won one of the nine contests, you need to rethink your candidacy." Would you abide by that?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I don't know. I mean, we're strong all through the country. We've got good organizations in South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Arizona, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Michigan, Wisconsin. So we've got a lot of strength. We've got a nationwide campaign. We feel very good about things.

MR. RUSSERT: But you have to win?

GEN. CLARK: Well, we do expect to win.

MR. RUSSERT: Here?

GEN. CLARK: Not here, but, you know, I wouldn't rule anything out anywhere. We're going to do as well as we can everywhere.

MR. RUSSERT: And then go down to South Carolina, Oklahoma, Missouri?

GEN. CLARK: Right. And keep this thing rolling. I mean, we've got a lot of strength. We've got an incredibly strong base of support, especially in the South, but really all across the country. You know, there are 50,000 to 70,000 people that urged me to get into this from the draft, and people have quit their jobs. They're full-time volunteers. It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen. I mean, it's just real passion and we've got hundreds of people up here in New Hampshire this weekend from San Diego and Seattle and Texas and Florida just trying to help because they believe we need a higher standard of leadership in this country. They know we can do better than George W. Bush and that we have to.

MR. RUSSERT: You have talked extensively about leadership in your campaign as a former military general, and particularly on the issue of terrorism, this is how the Concord Monitor up here captured some of your comments: "Wesley Clark said the two greatest lies of the last three years are that Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks couldn't have been prevented and that another attack is inevitable. He said a Clark administration would protect America in the future. `If I'm president of the United States,' Clark said, `we are not going to have one of these incidents.'" How can you make an ironclad guarantee like that?

GEN. CLARK: I didn't make a guarantee. What I said is, "We're going to do a lot better." What's happened is this administration did not do everything it could have before 9/11 to prevent the terrorist strikes. And after 9/11, President Bush has taken us into a war that we didn't have to fight, a war in Iraq, and we were still at threat condition orange over the holiday period because Osama bin Laden still on the loose because we were distracted. We're going to really put the emphasis on going after Osama bin Laden, strengthening homeland security and making America safe. We're the strongest nation in the world and we don't have to live in fear.

MR. RUSSERT: Much of the planning about September 11 by the hijackers probably occurred during the Clinton administration. Isn't that fair?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it goes back a long way, but here's what's striking about this. When the Bush administration came to office, they were warned that the biggest threat to the United States was the threat of terrorism and Osama bin Laden. And yet on the 10th of September there was still no U.S. government plan as to how to deal with it. Yet, a lot of effort had been invested in things like national missile defense. All of the experts on the outside and the inside kept telling this administration, "Don't get sucked into national missile defense. Your biggest threat is terrorism." And, yet, they didn't want to listen. For them, it was a political issue. It was ideological. It was national missile defense rather than terrorism.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, General, when you say we are not going to have one of these incidents, are you giving false assurances to people that you can prevent another terrorist attack?

GEN. CLARK: I think when the administration says that another attack is inevitable, what they're saying is, "We don't want to be blamed," and what I believe is that leadership has to stand up and be made accountable. This administration should be held accountable for not doing everything it could to protect America before 9/11. And I will do everything I can to protect America.

MR. RUSSERT: But if you became president, there could be another attack?

GEN. CLARK: No one can guarantee that there can't be another attack. But what I can guarantee is that we'll do everything possible to keep this country safe from terrorism, and we won't use fear as a--in a political agenda.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to Iraq. This is something you wrote in The Times of London, April 5, 2003: "...the military tasks will not be over until we get the weapons of mass destruction. They are there in Iraq, somewhere."

How could you, president, President Clinton, the CIA, the British--How could everyone be so wrong about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I think the intelligence community needs to tell us that. But I think it's more than the intelligence community, because I think what this administration has done is play politics with intelligence, and really lean on the intelligence community to come up with the answers they've sought. So a lot of us...

MR. RUSSERT: That's a serious charge.

GEN. CLARK: A lot of us who have not been privy to secret intelligence simply listened to what people told us. Secretary of state--Rumsfeld told a group of retired generals shortly before the war, he said, "I know where 30 percent of the weapons of mass destruction are." Now, when the secretary of defense tells you something like that, you have a tendency to believe him.

MR. RUSSERT: What evidence do you have that politics were played with the intelligence services?

GEN. CLARK: Well, let's look at it this way. What's happened in the last few days is that there was a memo that came out of the Department of Defense that was sent over to the Congress, that was leaked, highly classified, sensitive, compartmented intelligence, leaked and published in a Weekly Standard. Now, the standard rule on anything like this is never to confirm it because if you confirm something like this, you're giving away maybe sources and methods. The vice president said that that was the best explanation of the connection between al-Qaeda and Saddam Hussein. So he's essentially using a leaked memo to confirm his predisposition to believe that Saddam had something to do with 9/11. That's playing politics with national security. It risks our intelligence community, our sources and methods, it's wrong. And as president I won't tolerate that.

MR. RUSSERT: Do you believe that in the future, if the president of the United States, President Bush or any president, went forward and said, "North Korea has nuclear weapons. Iran has nuclear weapons. We have to do something about it," people in the world or in the United States would accept that at face value?

GEN. CLARK: They won't, Tim, because this administration has hyped the intelligence to get us into Iraq. The president still didn't admit the truth in the State of the Union speech that there aren't any weapons of mass destruction there. David Kay said there weren't when he gave up his position. And we've damaged the credibility of the presidency, we've damaged our national credibility on this issue of weapons of mass destruction.

MR. RUSSERT: All that being said, is the war in Iraq worthwhile?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I'm very glad that we got Saddam Hussein out of there. But I wouldn't have done it that way. Because what it did is distract us from our focus on Osama bin Laden and the people who attacked this country. That would have been my first priority because they're the ones who are the threat to America. There was no imminent threat to the United States from Saddam Hussein. But there is, and has been, an imminent threat from Osama bin Laden and terrorists. And I believe that it's the job of the president of the United States to focus U.S. effort on the highest priorities first. And I would have gone after Osama bin Laden and the terrorists.

MR. RUSSERT: But during the debate on the war, Howard Dean has said repeatedly that all the other candidates were for it. He cites your comments, the Associated Press, that you would have supported a congressional resolution, that you encouraged Katrina Swett, who's running for Congress here, to vote for it, that as recently as September 18 of 2003 you said you would have voted for it. You were for giving the president authority despite your reservations?

GEN. CLARK: I was for giving the president the authority to go to the United Nations with the will of the Congress, that something had to be done about Iraq, but not for giving him a blank check to go to war. I would not have voted for the resolution as it was actually finally formulated, and I did not agree with the decision to go to war when he did it. As you and I discussed back in February, this was an elective war. He chose to do this, and, Tim, he went to war without an imminent threat, without a connection between Iraq and the events of 9/11. He went to war before the diplomatic alternatives were exhausted, before our allies were on board, before we had a plan for what we were going to do when we go to Baghdad, and without adequate forces on the ground to do it with. So I don't support the way the president's made these decisions. I think it's been bad leadership.

MR. RUSSERT: Since you've been up here in New Hampshire, I've noticed a lot of news coverage--it was brought up in the debate the other day--about Michael Moore's endorsement of you, and I want to give you a chance to clear up this incident if we can. This was Michael Moore on January 17 greeting you at a rally, and then he offered these words.

(Videotape):

MR. MICHAEL MOORE: The general vs. the deserter! That's the debate!

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "The general vs. the deserter! That's the debate!"

GEN. CLARK: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: Is it appropriate to call the president of the United States a deserter?

GEN. CLARK: Well, you know, Tim, I wouldn't have used that term and I don't see the issues that way. This is an election about the future, and what's at stake in this election is the future of how we're going to move ahead with the economy, how we're going to keep the United States safe and what kind of democracy we want to have, whether we want an open, transparent government or whether we want a very closed and secretive government. To me, those are the issues.

And I was in bowling alleys in Manchester last night talking to people, and nobody mentioned anything about President Bush and his military record. But what they are very concerned about is they don't have work. And when they have work, the work doesn't pay enough to really support a family. That's why what we've done is we've initiated the preparations for the most sweeping tax reform in 30 years. And here's what we're going to do, Tim. If you're a family of four making $50,000 or less, you're never going to pay federal income taxes again. And if you're a family with children making $100,000 or less, you're going to get a tax reduction of about $1,500 a year.

Now, I spent most of my adult life making less than $100,000 a year. In fact, more than half my time in the Army, I made less than $50,000 a year. My mother was a secretary in a bank, and so we struggled, from the time I was a kid growing up all the way through my military career, with what we were going to do at the end of the month and whether we could afford to get a car repaired and what if the seats had a hole in them and how you were going to pay for braces, and all of those issues were important. What we want to do in this campaign is help Americans. We want to take back the White House so that we can help ordinary working families in this country.

MR. RUSSERT: But words are important, and as you well know under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, if you're a deserter, the punishment is death during war. Do you disassociate yourself from Michael Moore's comments about the president?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I can't use those words and I don't see the issues in that way. But I will tell you this: that Michael Moore has the right to speak freely. I don't screen what people say when they're going to come up and say something like that. That's his form of dissent, and I support freedom of speech in this country, and I would not have characterized the issues in that way. I think this is an election where we have to look at the future, not at the past. And so what we're doing is we're taking the campaign to the American people on the issues of jobs, education and health care. We can do so much more for people in this country if we just have a government that cares about ordinary people. And that's the way I grew up.

We never had any money in my family and, you know, my father died when I was not quite four and we moved back to Arkansas, and she moved in with her mother and dad. My grandfather, he worked in a sawmill. He basically sharpened saws in the sawmill. We never had anything, and I was just a very lucky young man. I made good grades and I believed in public service, and I owe a lot to this country and I want to help this country do things for other people.

MR. RUSSERT: The right of dissent is one thing, but is there any evidence that you know of that President Bush is a deserter from the United States armed forces?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I've never looked into those, Tim. I've heard those allegations. But I think this election has to turn on holding the president accountable for what he's done in office and comparing who has the better vision to take the country forward.

MR. RUSSERT: One of your major supporters uses words like that. Isn't that a distraction?

GEN. CLARK: Well, it's not distracting me, and I don't see any voters out there who are distracted by it. I've talked to people all across this state, and not one single person has mentioned that. I will tell you this about Michael Moore, though. I think he's a man of conscience. I think he's done a lot of great things for ordinary people, working people, across America. And I'm very happy to have his support. He's free to say things, whatever he wants. I'm focused on the issues in this campaign and how to take America forward.

MR. RUSSERT: You are a former military general, as the world knows. This was the cover of The Advocate magazine, a magazine for gay readers. If you became president, would you issue an executive order overruling "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in the military?

GEN. CLARK: No. What I would do is go to the leaders of the armed forces and ask them to review the policy and come back and provide, to my satisfaction, a policy that is fair and that allows qualified people to serve. I don't believe the United States armed forces should be the last institution in America that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.

MR. RUSSERT: Would you support gay marriages?

GEN. CLARK: I support equal rights, and what that means is if people want to enter into a contract where they have the right to visitation in a hospital, just as though they were family, they should have that right. If they want the rights of survivorship, they should have that right. If they want the right to put their partner on an insurance policy, they should have that right. And whether that's called marriage or not is really--that's up to the church or synagogue or mosque and the states. But equal rights in America is a requirement; that's what we stand for as a nation, and that's what I support.

MR. RUSSERT: You told The Advocate that in Massachusetts, if you say you're going to form a civil union, but we're going to call it a marriage, that as far as you're concerned, it's a marriage.

GEN. CLARK: That's up to the states.

MR. RUSSERT: Let me turn to another issue that's come up in the campaign, particularly from Senator Joe Lieberman and the other candidates, talking about your candidacy: "The Kerry campaign has sent fliers to potential New Hampshire voters criticizing the general's lobbying, and in an e-mail sent to reporters over the weekend, Kerry spokesman Mark Kornblau said, `Wes Clark was a high-paid Republican Washington lobbyist who cashed in on his military record.'"

GEN. CLARK: Well, I don't engage in that kind of negative politicking. I think this is a campaign that has to be about the issues. And what I've seen going around the state of New Hampshire is people who really need the leadership to get Washington moving. Now, in my military career, I had probably one of the broadest careers anyone could ever have. I taught economics and political philosophy. I was a White House fellow in the Office of Management and Budget in the Ford administration. And I spent three years in the business community; I did investment banking. I looked at companies and tried to help them grow. I formed my own consulting company. And I brought good ideas to government that would help keep our country safe.

But if you look at all of that, what I've got is a broad range of experiences to get this country moving, and I think that's what this election is about. This election is about how to explain to the American people that we're at the end of an era, Tim, the era when you could give tax cuts to wealthy Americans and say with a straight face to the American people, "Let's just give these wealthy people the money, and one way or another they're going to make jobs for us." Well, that era's gone. The hollowness of the president's economic strategy is apparent to me on the basis of the people I meet in New Hampshire, in South Carolina and across the country. This nation has to produce jobs. I know how to do that. When I'm president of the United States, next to keeping America safe, producing jobs, well-paying, family- supporting jobs, is going to be my top priority.

MR. RUSSERT: You're not concerned that your acknowledgement that you had voted for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan and that you earned $500,000 from a company that talked about a program to screen airline passengers that is controversial will hurt your candidacy?

GEN. CLARK: No, because I think Americans are looking for someone with a broad and diverse background. I know there are people that would like to drum people out of the Democratic Party, but I want to bring people to this party. I think I'm the only candidate who can do it. We can reach out and bring in Independents, we can bring in moderate Republicans. Listen, we'll even bring in people who voted for Reagan and even Richard Nixon, and we're not even going to ask them to repent because people learn during their lives. And there'll be a lot of people who'll come to this party and vote for new standards of leadership in Washington when I'm the candidate.

MR. RUSSERT: Big discussion this week about abortion and your position. Outside the legalities of Roe vs. Wade, do you personally believe that life begins at conception?

GEN. CLARK: I believe that that's an issue that people have to wrestle with themselves.

MR. RUSSERT: Well, what about you, though? How do you feel?

GEN. CLARK: What do I believe?

MR. RUSSERT: Yeah.

GEN. CLARK: I believe in the standards of the law and what we've got is and what the voters want to know is what's my position and I'm pro-choice. And I think those are personal issues that every person has to wrestle with for themselves. But I think a woman's right to reproductive choice, it's a right that's part of our freedom and liberty, guaranteed by the Constitution, and that's a right that I'm going to protect, Tim.

MR. RUSSERT: But you can understand that some people believe that life begins at conception.

GEN. CLARK: I can understand that some people believe things all over--when you're dealing with an issue like this, you're dealing with an intersection of so many different strains of thought--science and medicine and law and people's personal convictions--and that's why we believe that a woman's right to choose is fundamental. This is something that's a very personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, her faith, and that's why we support choice.

MR. RUSSERT: General Wesley Clark, be safe on the campaign trail. We'll be watching the next 48 hours.

GEN. CLARK: Thanks, Tim.

Rspaight wrote:Infamous liberal sympathizer Tim Russert vs. Wesley Clark, Round II, from this past Sunday:

That's right, folks: Russert is part of the liberal media bias!

http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Toptenlies.htm

4. There is no liberal bias in the media- For close to 50 years the news in America was controlled by ABC, NBC and CBS. In the last 20 years CNN came on to the scene. This is pretty much comparable to the BBC in Europe and AL Jazzera in the Arab world today. It was in the last 6 years when Fox News and other cable news networks were born to give a more balanced approach to news analysis. However, if you look at the major networks today, they are still run by the left. Tim Russert, the President of NBC News, at one time worked for Mario Cuomo. The top players at ABC News are Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts- hardly conservatives. Lets not forget the statement the President of ABC News made after September 11th. CBS News has Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer- more non-conservatives. All you have to say about CNN is that it was created by Ted Turner. In print media there is the Los Angeles Times in California, The New York Times in New York and The Atlanta Journal Constitution in Georgia. These have been the major newspapers in our most populous cities for many years and their reporting has a liberal bias.

"The top players at ABC News are Peter Jennings, George Stephanopolous, Sam Donaldson and Cokie Roberts- hardly conservatives. Lets not forget the statement the President of ABC News made after September 11th. CBS News has Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer- more non-conservatives."

So "non-conservative" equals "liberal"?

Yeah, Sam and Cokie are notorious liberals.

Patrick M wrote:http://www.boycottliberalism.com/Toptenlies.htm

Was that written by a third grader? Some that jumped out at me:

1. Count Every Vote- This was the mantra of the Al Gore campaign after the 2000 presidential election, when they were hand counting votes in 3 highly Democratic counties, while at the same time trying to disqualify military votes. In effect they were trying to change the rules of the election after the election had taken place, which violated federal election law. A liberal Florida Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the Gore Campaign until the U.S. Supreme Court put a stop to it. To this very day, liberals actually believe George Bush stole the election.

While Gore didn't *quite* have the right idea (he should have just asked for a statewide hand recount from the get-go), the concept was along the right lines. As far as the military votes goes, the only people trying to "change the rules" were the Republicans - the votes in question weren't dated, were dated after the election, etc...things in clear conflict with the law.

6. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinsky- We all know the truth here. There is nothing to be added- except that it was not a vast right wing conspiracy.

I don't get it. How is this a "top liberal lie"? What does it have to do with being a liberal?

17. There was a rush to war in Iraq. I would have given diplomacy a chance and created a world coalition. Please note that Iraq violated 16 United Nation resolutions over a period of 10 years. The only reason Saddam Hussein allowed United Nations inspectors back into his country to search for weapons of mass destruction was due to the fact that the United States had Iraq surrounded by war ships and over 100,000 U.S. troops. Many of the troops had been sitting in the desert and on ships for 6 to 8 months before the war began while diplomacy was given a chance. I guess my question to liberals would be- so if we pull our troops back (we cannot leave them there indefinitely) and Saddam kicks out the inspectors again- then what? Do we go through the whole process again? Military leaders had many factors to consider in the timing of the war in Iraq, such as the time of year (weather conditions) and morale of the troops. They could not invade in the middle of summer or in the middle of winter. They also could not leave our men and women in uniform remaining idle and bored for months or years while we try to negotiate with a dictator as countries like France undercut our efforts. If you really want to lower morale and place troops in great danger- leave them sitting stationed idle around Iraq for two years before conducting a war- when after the war is over they will still be needed. I guess this would have been the plan of the Democratic Party.

What this ignores, of course, is that Iraq wasn't an immediate threat, and there was plenty of evidence to back that up. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe Iraq "kicked out" inspectors to begin with. And...well, I could go on and on.

18. The Enron Scandal- First Democrats attacked the Bush administration demanding to know the extent they were involved in the Enron collapse. Once Democrats learned that they were not involved- they attacked the Bush Administration demanding to know why they did not help to save the company.

Again...huh?

19. We don't need to drill for oil in Alaska, because we could save the same amount of oil by increasing the standards for miles per gallon on cars and SUV's- What liberals are really saying is that they care more about contributions from environmentalists than they do about your family. What they are saying is they care more about the caribou than your children. When you lower the standards of miles per gallon, in effect you lower the safety of cars. Please note, America is about freedom of choice. If someone wants to drive an SUV, so be it. I guess liberals would have us all driving around in a Yugo if they had their choice. It wasn't that long ago when liberals were trying to reduce the speed limits on highways, because they said it would save lives. Do you see a contradiction here? Also please note, no one knows how much oil is in Alaska. I know liberals will charge that Republicans are for drilling in Alaska, because oil companies are a big contributor to their party. I am not even going to go into the National Security implication and benefits of being energy dependent from the Middle East. Lastly, and most importantly, we need to develop affordable alternative sources of energy such as hydrogen fuel cells.

"Contributions from environmentalists"? And how is making cars get better gas mileage intrinsically tied to safety? And don't we have government safety standards for a reason?

22. I am against the death penalty, but for abortion- This is more of an observation on just how backwards liberal thinking really is; however, I felt compelled to add it to the list. How can you support the taking of an innocent life and be opposed to taking the life of someone that has committed acts of evil? Those on death row have hurt innocent people, families, children and society. What acts has an unborn child committed to deserve the fate of being aborted. This is a perfect example of how liberals are on the wrong side of issues. Liberals will claim that abortion is a right to privacy issue - the so called, "it is my body and I can do with it what I wish". Well- a person cannot do whatever they wish with their body if it effects me. You cannot take your fist (which is part of your body) and punch me in the face. A person has the right to privacy in their home, but that does not extend to activities which are illegal. Your rights end where my rights begin. A heart beats at less than 4 weeks. Isn't a heart beat the final determination of death. Why should a heart beat not be the final determination of life?

First of all, there's a big difference between being "for abortion" and being "pro choice". I'm not exactly saying "hey girls, go get an abortion, it's fun!" But if in a situation where it might be called for, I do think it's up to the woman to decide how she wants to handle things. As far as the death penalty goes, it doesn't make society any better, it doesn't make us any safer, and it does put innocent to death (sorry, not everyone on death row is actually guilty).

23. We cannot fight two wars at the same time, there is no link between Iraq and terrorism- This was the liberal mantra on keeping a ruthless brutal dictator in power. Please note that Saddam Hussein was paying the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Mass graves have been found in Iraq and Saddam was a terrorist.

Am I the only one who doesn't see any connection between the initial line and the comments that follow it?

lukpac wrote:Was that written by a third grader?

Let's not play class warfare here.

And how is making cars get better gas mileage intrinsically tied to safety?

The idea, I think, is that to make a car get better gas mileage, you have to make it lighter. And lighter is more unsafe, per the conservatives. Surely you've seen the blonde talking head conservatives on Bill Maher talking about how they don't want to drive a dinky deathtrap?

The irony is that those huge vehicles are very unsafe....for everyone else on the road. I've read that the most dangerous vehicle to be hit by is a super duper large truck. #2 on the list is an SUV. (Maybe Ryan can find a link about this.)

And don't we have government safety standards for a reason?

But you forget: Life was better when we had red M&Ms, radioactive Fiestaware, no seat belts, and lead-based paint (tasty).

Am I the only one who doesn't see any connection between the initial line and the comments that follow it?

No, but it's pretty typical. I saw Bush on TV talking about Saddam tonight. All he could say was something like, "I have no doubt he was a bad guy and the world is better off without him in power." IOW, the ends justify the means.

Patrick M wrote:But you forget: Life was better when we had red M&Ms, radioactive Fiestaware, no seat belts, and lead-based paint (tasty).

Sorry, forgot about that.

It's those damn lawyers, you know.

They also could not leave our men and women in uniform remaining idle and bored for months or years while we try to negotiate with a dictator

What, like in South Korea? Or in Germany during the Cold War?

The irony is that those huge vehicles are very unsafe....for everyone else on the road.

But that's the ultimate expression of the conservative worldview -- I've got mine, screw everyone else. They commute to work by themselves in an eight-passenger 4WD mini-school bus, blocking up everyone's sightlines and being a general self-centered menace. But who cares? Theirs is bigger.

Ryan