I am very interested. he is out in front when it comes to the war issueNow that's an interesting observation. It was Dr. Dean that jumped on W. at the start. Sure, Clark was critical when he was a talking head for CNN, but it's easy to be an "armchair general". Last week, when the media started sqeezing him on whether he'd have voted for the war resolution he was all over the map. I understand his position. He thought the resolution should have strengthened W.'s hand when he went to the U.N., but he wanted W. to come back to Congress for authorization to go to war. Two things wrong with this argument: 1) Iraq didn't have WMD's, ties to Osama bin Laden, or had imported yellowcake from Niger as W. and his henchmen claimed, so supporting W. shouldn't have been an issue; and 2) How can you trust W? He lies like a cheap rug. Even if a "two part" authorization was expected, once the Pretender had his shred of legitimacy, he was sending in the Marines.Dr. Dean has opposed the war from the beginning. Even when it was a political liability to oppose W. He said Sadam wasn't linked to terrorist, or a threat to the U.S. I want someone that makes a clear distinction between his position and the neocons that have highjacked our country. Just my $0.02.Rock Chalk, y'all,Dr. J. Hawk
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra