It does not matter if Iraq has or had WOMD's or not at this point

[GePap]

Originally posted by Patroklos
GePap

"That they are more eager to send people into war?"

"IN the last 100 years it has been Dems using the military the most."

Which one is it?

Its the same- supposely Republicans are better on defense becuase they are "hawks", willing to go to war in the name of national interest..but then look who was president at the time American soldiers were on the field and dying, and this century, the president has ususally been a dmeocrat, even when Republicans have held the WH longer. So by the actual measures people seem to use to guess who is better for national defense, the dems come ahead.

[Ned]

The only Democrat who can beat Bush is Clark.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by rah
Hmmm, some might say that FDR knew about Pearl Harbor in advance but let it happen so he could take political advantage to push his own agenda.
Hmmm, never mind, since some might say the same about GB. and I wouldn't want that to happen.

NEWFLASH -- those who blame FDR for Pearl Harbor are just as loony as those who blame GB for 9/11.

So ya don't have me in that corner.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
The only Democrat who can beat Bush is Clark.

Maybe, maybe not. Dean gets people pretty excited, and a lot of folks respond to him. Heck, the more the Dem's attack him, the more popular he eems to get.

[Ned]

Che, to win, the Dems need some of the Southern states. Clark is from the South and is also a general. That alone will get him three or four states, including Arkansas, Tennessee and Florida. That should tip the election to Clark.

Dean has no hope whatsoever in the South.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by GePap

I agree..so why do so many conservatives question the ability of non military types to make certain decisions?

I dont know.

What about Johnson? he was more of a hawk than any of those guys. Add to this the fact that being a hawk does not mean you are better when it comes to international affairs or promoting our security? After all, it was Nixon that got out of Vietnam..why didn;t he stay till victory?

I wouldnt call Johnson a Hawk. He continued a war he didnt start and didnt have the balls to get out of. The strain of carrying on with something he disagreed with ended him.

He was also decorated for his actions- i guess, what does dying for your contry have to do with service? And how do you measure patriotism? By what you say, or what you do?

Men and women who served America in Vietnam did just that. Most were drafted and their service had very little to do with patriotism. I dont know exactly what was said so I'm in no position to judge the validity of the comments. I dont agree, though, that being drafted or being wounded makes you a patriot.

[MrFun]

Um -- isn't there another Democratic candidate from the South?

The Senator of South Carolina -- damn it, what's his name again??

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Patroklos
How can you possibly not equate military experiance to the Commander and Chief function. It isn't a guarantee but pior experiance in any job is what employers always look for

Not that Commander and Chief is the only job function, so being in the military does not equal good presidency if you can only function in that area, but look at it as one of the desireable traits.

Just how would one get job experience for commander in chief of the US armed forces? Perhaps a lesser job first such as commander in chief of the Canadian forces.

No one would say that being a private in an inf company gives you experience to command even a battalion. So why think it's experience to command an army?

I'm not saying its worthless, just not as important as being able to make good decisions. Reagan didnt fight any wars but he made good decisions.

[chequita guevara]

There are three candidates from the South, Clark, Edwards, and Gephart. Plus there are a couple of senators from Florida on Dean's short list for Veep.

[MrFun]

John Edwards -- that's who he is. He's another Democratic candidate of the South.

[chequita guevara]

BTW, John Edwards represents North Carolina.

[Ramo]

Who's in Dean's short list for Veep?

[Guynemer]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, to win, the Dems need some of the Southern states.... Dean has no hope whatsoever in the South.

I don't know why people keep saying this. Gore didn't win a single Southern state in 2000 (unless you count New Mexico), and yet if he had been able to hold on to West Virginia or New Hampshire, longtime Dem strongholds, he'd be running for reelection this year.

The Dems don't need the South. If they could steal a state or two, great, but they can win the election without a single state south of the Mason-Dixon Line.



Moreover, regarding Max Cleland, the Democrat gentlemen who had three limbs blown off in Vietnam, the Republicans ran ads against him showing pictures of him with Osama & Saddam in the background. That is simply beyond the boundaries of good taste, even in politics.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ramo
Who's in Dean's short list for Veep?

Bill Nelson for sure. I think Bob Grahm is as well. There are unconfirmed reports that Dean has asked Clark as well (Clark people deny it).

[MrFun]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
BTW, John Edwards represents North Carolina.

Thanks for the correction.