[Vision2020] POLITICAL PREDICTIONS-(was ANOTHER National Democrat on Iraq)
Tim Lohrmann
timlohr@yahoo.com
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 11:46:37 -0700 (PDT)
Donavan,
Well, your resume actually looks pretty good in
two out of the three areas you mention.
Making people mad is of course a well-known
pre-requisite to accomplishing anything. Or at least
that's what this old man I used to go fishing with
told me.
Political predictions are a great skill, if for no
other reason than the fact that there are some really
cheap flights to Nevada just now. You can get some
excellent odds on long-range predictions. Just don't
wait too long.
The "standing up for the rights of the
disadvantaged" one is probably not as impressive. As
you know that's already a crowded multi-billion dollar
industry in this country. Oh well, there's always room
for one more I guess.
I enjoyed reading your prognostications.
But I've got some squabbles with a few of them.
1. Sharpton/Braun: You're right of course that the
Algore/Clinton DLC Democrats put Mosely-Braun in to
blunt Sharpton's appeal. They're terrified of Al, but
I don't think it's going to work. Al has national
appeal among Blacks but Braun, as a defeated Senator
is not nearly as well-known, particularly not in the
South. I never meant to imply that I thought Sharpton
had a chance to win, but I think he'll get quite a
few delegates starting in SC and continuing on to
SUPER TUESDAY when a number of Southern states vote.
------So the chore for the DLC types will be to keep
Al off primetime--where the average voter won't dig
him--while making it look as if they still "embrace"
him and his supporters. That should be an interesting
squirm fest to observe.
2. Kucinich: I'm thinking that the only thing Dennis
will do if he ever gets going will be to take a few
points from Dean. He's completely different from the
rest of these guys policy wise in ways that should
appeal to labor voters, but I think the labor elite
will be afraid to support him. I've heard the Green
party thing too, but I believe Nader will run with
Cynthia McKinney. Kucinich will probably just go back
and run for re-election to the House.
3. Gephardt: I think you underestimate the importance
of Iowa to what happens in NH.(And by the way, Dick
has been in NH for years as well.) IF Dick Gephardt
can kick it in Iowa--and he will have enough labor
support in the larger towns to make sure his
supporters get out-- and get a momentum surge from
that, he could easily finish a strong second in NH
with a last minute surge. That way, he could win the
"expectations game" the press always plays and
eliminate either Kerry or Dean and seriously weaken
the other one right there. After that, he'd still have
hard battles in the South with Edwards and etc. but
he'd be off to an awesome start. It could happen.
And by the way, I saw the other day that his
fundraising in Iowa is going well.
I believe he'd be the strongest Demo. in the general
because he would be very strong in the upper
midwest(MI, Wisc.,MN) because of his union support and
career long-focus on economic issues. And Bush is
going to need some of those states with Gephardt
taking Missouri away from him.
4. Kerry and Dean: I agree Kerry would be stronger in
the general, but Dean has cost him a lot of support.
I believe his Kennedy-posing(he wants to be referred
to as John F. Kerry now) and his constant attempts to
cash in on his veteran status will wear thin and be
seen as phony by voters. Also, Mass. liberal
candidates are regarded as parodies or pariahs in the
south---and Kerry would probably need to pick up
either GA or NC in addition to Fla.
I totally disagree with you that Dean could win a
general election. His record on calling for gay "civil
unions" won't help. The GOP is going to use that big
time in the general election. Most voters don't favor
it--don't forget that in CA gay marriage lost big time
statewide and by even larger margins among hispanics.
And Hispanic voters are crucial in New Mexico, Nevada,
and Colorado--all states that are competitive in
national elections. I'm not sure if it would mean a
loss of CA for the Demos. but that would be within the
realm of possibility if Davis is recalled there and a
popular GOP governor goes into office and is somewhat
successful. I'm interested in the Dean skeletons--got
a website for me?
4. Clark is, in my opinion running for VP as someone
voters would take seriously on military and foreign
issues. However, there are quite a few questions about
his command of NATO forces that, when they're brought
up will turn the Demo. liberals right off. For
example, it has been reported that the intelligence
about genocidal slaughter of muslims was way off. And
also there's the problem that the KLA is now known to
have been engaged in heroin smuggling. The fruits of
this enterprise were then funneled to groups
affiliated with Al Qaida. And the KLA are the folks we
were helping over there. Once Clark sees the light of
day politically and gets some real examination by the
media and his opponents, he won't be able to handle it
and his support will evaporate.
5. You could be right about Hillary, but I really
believe she's too calculating to risk what you
mention. I think she'd much rather stay out of it in
04 for a clear shot in four years.
TL
--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tim writes:
> > "FINALLY! Now this is what I wanted out of
> what was
> >becoming a tiresome discussion--some genuine
> political
> >analysis. I was starting to think everyone on here
> was
> >too defensive about their precious Democrat party
> to
> >be able to discuss what in the heck they're doing."
>
> Tim there is only three things I do very well.
> 1) Make people mad
> 2) Stand up for the rights of the disadvantaged
> 3) Political strategy--(I know this contradicts
> number one).
>
> The third is my second favorite.
>
> I have never been that off in my political
> predictions. Granted, I am not
> perfect, but for the most part I have a good batting
> average on political
> predictions.
>
> Let us look at each one that you brought up Tim.
>
> Let us start at the bottom and work up.
>
> Mosley-Braun is the election only for one reason,
> she is planted to steal
> votes from Al Sharpton
>
> Sharpton is the election to build up his political
> base and standing in the
> Black community. Yes he can pick up a few votes and
> delegates around the
> South. However, he is doing this only so he can
> speak at the Democratic
> convention and raise issues facing minorities. There
> is not any other
> candidate that I like better on the issues than
> Sharpton. But he doesn't
> stand a chance. Braun keeps him from picking up more
> delegates in the
> convention and lessens his ability to choose a
> candidate that can't win the
> general election. His ability to be effective may be
> cut short if he
> continues to fail to generate enough funds to even
> make it to Southern
> Primaries.
>
> Kucinich has a hidden agenda. He can't win the
> nomination, and he certainly
> can't win the general election. He probably could
> not even carry his state
> at this point if he was a VP pick. But his high
> media attention does give
> him good name recognition. He could be using that
> for another reason, such
> as fighting for the Democratic nomination for US
> Senate to defeat Senator
> Voinovich who is showing weakness. He may need that
> name recognition to
> defeat Fingerhut and Jerry Springer for the
> nomination. Others think he is
> considering a nomination by the Green Party and
> running in states where the
> democratic nominee can't win anyway.
>
> Graham, is not a serious contender. He is only
> looked at as a VP candidate
> because he could help with carrying Florida. He is
> only barely placing over
> Kucinich in the polls and money. Frankly, he is
> boring and not that
> appealing.
>
>
> Edwards, I don't think he is taken seriously. He
> can't win because people
> that even like him know that he is not experienced
> enough to be President of
> the United States. He is also a trial lawyer, not a
> popular occupation
> nowadays. He could be picked as a VP by Lieberman to
> compliment the ticket
> and bring in the 11 electoral votes needed in
> addition to the 260 electoral
> votes the Democrats pretty much already have giving
> them 271 electoral
> votes.
>
>
> Gephardt, doesn't have a chance. He can sway who
> gets the nomination. He is
> only doing well in Iowa because he has campaigned
> there since 1986 and they
> owe him big time for all the legislation he pushed
> through for the farmers
> and blue collar labor unions. He is from Missouri
> and is often called Iowa's
> fifth Representative(there is not 5th district, but
> he does just as much for
> them) If Gephardt places any lower than a strong
> first place he is done
> right there. New Hampshire will kill him, he will
> place probably 4th or
> fifth there. If he gets lots of attention, he might
> place fourth. He is
> known as a great fundraiser for the Democratic party
> and is not doing that
> well, a strong sign of weakness in support.
>
> Kerry is where we start to see someone that can look
> and act like a
> President. He is has a record that matches most past
> presidential candidates
> and Presidents. His ability to be a serious
> contender ends or begins on in
> the New Hampshire Primary. If he places first in the
> Primary over Howard
> Dean he is in the race for a while and could clinch
> the nomination. He would
> do much better than Dean in the General election.
> However, if he places a
> distant second or third even in the NH primary
> people will stop supporting
> him and his funds will dry up quick. He probably
> could get really nasty with
> Dean, but this would most likely benefit other
> candidates besides him for
> going negative even though it would prevent Dean the
> nomination.
>
> Lieberman, has a good chance in the General
> election. Most national polls
> show him ahead of Dean and Kerry. He is also favored
> by the DLC and DNC over
> Dean and Kerry. He unfortunately is not ranking well
> in Iowa and New
> Hampshire. His lack of media attention, and large
> number of potential voters
> taking a "wait and see" attitude is hurting him. He
> has huge name
> recognition nationally because he was Al Gore's
> running mate. His base
> support is in "right of center" Democrats and
> independents. This is not good
> for the Democratic nomination but is good if he
> should win. He is not an
> exciting man, and may be weeded out with the pack as
> he fails to produce
> results in Iowa and New Hampshire. The Democratic
> Party leaders are trying
> to prevent this because he is a viable option for a
> win in the General
> election.
>
> Dean represents a serious dilemma for those that
> know better. He has the
> ability to get the nomination, he also has the
> ability to defeat Bush in the
> electoral college in the general election. What he
> also has the ability to
> destroy the Democratic Party and bury it deep so
> nobody can bring it back
> for the next eight to twenty years. He appeals to
> the most Democrats but
> none on the right of center. If Dean did win the
> nomination and even if he
> won the election, he would cost US House and Senate
> Seats all across the
> nation. This would put the Democratic party as a
> small minority in the two
> houses. In addition, I think that Dean would lose
> the General election. Bush
> and his people are not going to play nice with Dean.
> Dean has a huge closet
> full of skeletons that will brought out and shown to
> the public. If things
> get tuff for Bush he can do three things. Have his
> brother instruct the
> state legislature in Florida to throw out the
> popular vote in Florida and
> cast the electoral vote for him (unfair but
> legal)Second, he can drop Cheney
> from the ticket, put him somewhere else in the
> administration, and choose
> Tom Ridge, taking Pennsylvania. Impossible for Dean
> to overcome a 23
> electoral vote lose. Third, Cheney can instruct the
> NEW CIA director to
> fabricate evidence of WMD in Iraqi that showed a
> serious threat to the
> security of the United States and produce *fake*
> documents that show that
> Saddam was working with Bin Laudin to unleash
> chemical and biological
> weapons on US cities. This would discredit Dean
> because his stance was that
> we should not enter war with Iraqi because it was
> not a threat and show
> weapons of mass destruction. You are correct that
> most the people that
> support Dean would still do so even if he molested a
> child and it was on
> video tape. However, this fabricated evidence will
> be enough to cost Dean
> one state and cost him the election.
>
> That is why I pick General Wesley Clark. He has more
> brains than the other
> candidates. He is better looking, is an outsider,
> and can wipe Bush on
> issues of National Security, foreign policy, and
> economics in a live debate.
> He speaks well and is able to keep his cool. Bush
> will does not speak well
> and relies on his advisors to keep him up to date on
> the security issues and
> foreign policy issues. The economy is worse than
> 2000 and Clark use to work
> in the White House under Ford on in the Office of
> Budget and Management. So
> I think Bush will look very inferior to Clark on the
> national stage, and
> Bush will mess up eventually. His tricks with the
> WMD, switching running
> mates, or stealing Florida will not work because he
> opposed the war for
> different sound reasons and can win without Florida
> or Pennsylvania. So Bush
> would be toast. The problem is can Clark win the
> Democratic nomination? I
> don't know, to many Republicans that back him anger
> Democrats which
> threatens efforts to get him the nomination.
> Republicans for Clark want him
> to tout his positions on the right, which will not
> win the Democratic
> nomination. Democrats want him because of his
> stances on domestic issues
> that fit their beliefs, Republicans want him because
> he is strong on
> national security and foreign policy. So if the two
> can get along, I think
> Clark can win the nomination. If they can't Clark
> will look wobbly on the
> issues and the Democrats will bury him at the
> Nomination and choose someone
> else like Dean, Kerry, or Lieberman.
>
>
> Other candidates like Joe Biden, if they enter, will
> lose. My hope is that
> if Clark doesn't enter the race that Hillary Clinton
> will and steal the
> nomination from Dean, lose to Bush, pick up Senate
> and House Seats and put
> us in a position to win in 2008. Even though I am a
> Democrat, I would not
> vote for Dean or Bush. No way! I will write in Clark
> or cast a vote for a
> third party candidate like Nader. Not that my vote
> counts anyway in Idaho.
>
>
> Donovan J Arnold
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
> >To: Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
> >CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ANOTHER National Democrat
> on Iraq
> >Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 11:47:04 -0700 (PDT)
> >
> >Donovan,
> > FINALLY! Now this is what I wanted out of what
> was
> >becoming a tiresome discussion--some genuine
> political
> >analysis. I was starting to think everyone on here
> was
> >too defensive about their precious Democrat party
> to
> >be able to discuss what in the heck they're doing.
> >
> > I think you've made some darned good points.
> But
> >what about Gephardt? You think he's not in the
> picture
> >at all? The only reason I do is because he's
> >apparently got a good start in Iowa for those
> >ridiculous caucuses that the press always puts so
> much
> >stock in. I think he might get off to a good start
> at
> >least, and possibly after a victory in Iowa become
> a
> >more moderate, labor-backed alternative to Kerry
> and
> >Dean in their almost home turf of New Hampshire.
> So,
> >if Dean and Kerry split the more liberal votes,
> >Gephardt could do well there.
> >
> > I'm not sure if I agree with you or not about
> >whether Dean fades if WMD's are found. You're
> right,
> >of course, that he's appealing to the more liberal
> >wing by criticizing Bush on foreign policy but I
> >believe that his support is pretty deep. In other
> >words, the people that DO support him are true
> >believers who won't be swayed. Remember, we're
> talking
> >Demo primary voters here, not the general election.
> >I'm sure they'll be forgiving about criticism of
> Bush
> >for any reason. Dean will of course be a weak
> >candidate in the Gen. Election, but so will Bush,
> and
> >somebody's got to win, right?
> >
> > AS for Lieberman, I don't think he's going
> anywhere
> >because most people just can't visualize the guy as
> >president. Edwards might just catch on yet. But I
> >think he needs to do it pretty quick if he's going
> to
> >start getting the money he's going to need from any
> >sector of big contributors other than his fellow
> trial
> >lawyers.
> >
> > Personally, I believe one of the under reported
> >aspects of this primary race is the effect Al
> Sharpton
> >will have. Of course it won't be much in Iowa or NH
> >where there are fewer minority voters. But when the
> >race moves to South Carolina and other Southern
> states
> >where blacks make up a very large percentage of
> Demo
> >primary voters, I think Ole Al will pick up quite a
> >few delegates. Jesse Jackson sure did. Then it
> will
> >be interesting to watch the Demo bigwigs trying to
> >shut Sharpton up (let's face it the guy DOES come
> up
> >with some interesting rants now and then) while at
> the
> >same time keeping black voters on their side. That
> >might be a tough one.
> >
> > TL
> >
> >--- Donovan Arnold <donovanarnold@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > Tim,
> > >
> > > I can't believe you don't see why Clinton said
> that.
> > > The Democratic Party is
> > > divided. The DLC and DNC want Lieberman and
> Edwards
> > > to win. The left wing of
> > > the party is fueled by anger and want Dean. A
> few
> > > others want Kerry because
> > > he is more moderate and served in the military.
> The
> > > Uranium words were
> > > giving Dean and Kerry the most traction.
> Clinton's
> > > words just pulled the
> > > traction and momentum right out from underneath
> Dean
> > > and Kerry moving
> > > Lieberman and Edwards into a better position. If
> WMD
> > > are found, Dean falls
> > > on his face and Kerry fades away. I have a hunch
> > > that there will be some
> > > weapons of mass destruction found, or planted,
> in
> > > the next 6 months. Clinton
> > > is saving the face of the Democratic Party in
> that
> > > event. I think it is
> > > smart. God help us if we have to choose between
> Bush
> > > and Dean in 2004. We
> > > might as well concede the 50 colonies back to
> the
> > > British and say this
> > > experiment is over in that event. Choosing
> between
> > > a man who lies and is
> > > incompetent and a man who does not tell the
> truth
> > > and is not competent, is
> > > not much of a choice if you ask most people.
> > > I support General Wesley Clark for President, no
> > > matter what! He has more
> > > qualifications than anyone in the ring now. He
> is a
> > > "to the slightly left"
> > > Ronald Reagan.
> > >
> > > Donovan J Arnold
> > >
> > > Donovan J Arnold
> > >
> > >
> > > >From: Tim Lohrmann <timlohr@yahoo.com>
> > > >To: Sunil Ramalingam
> <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
> > > >CC: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > >Subject: Re: [Vision2020] ANOTHER National
> Democrat
> > > on Iraq
> > > >Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 22:14:47 -0700 (PDT)
> > > >
> > > >Sunil,
> > > > I CAN'T let go of the Democrats--at least
> the
> > > >national ones. They're so-o-o arrogantly
> > > condescending
> > > >towards all sorts of behavior except when one
> of
> > > their
> > > >own does it. Then it's fine!
> > > > Kerry is going around criticizing W for
> doing
> > > >exactly what he himself has recommended. That's
> the
> > > >sort of hypocrisy that needs to be exposed over
> and
> > > >over.
> > > > As for Bill Clinton's groin--even though
> he
> > > has
> > > >"opened the door" on that one(sorry, couldn't
> > > >resist)--I only brought him(and not his groin)
> up
> > > this
> > > >last time to speculate on why he would defend
> GW at
> > > >the exact moment when his partymates seem to be
> > > making
> > > >some hay over the W's uranium thingy. That
> seemed a
> > > >little puzzling to most on here. They couldn't
> > > answer
> > > >why he'd do it, and neither can I.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, Clinton's comments are
> directly
> > > >relevant to what you write that you consider
> > > important
> > > >below. Apparently ole Bill HAS looked at what W
> has
> > > >and is doing and he doesn't see a whole lot
> wrong
> > > with
> > > >it.
> > > >
> > > > The politics of all this is interesting,
> but as
> > > for
> > > >my personal view on the buildup to the war. I
> don't
> > > >believe it has made the country more secure
> against
> > > >possible terrorist attacks. I'd much rather
> have
> > > seen
> > > >these resources and in some cases manpower
> devoted
> > > to
> > > >dramatically stepped up efforts at finding out
> just
> > > >what and who is coming into our ports, across
> our
> > > own
> > > >borders, living in our cities etc.
> > > > As for the W administration's honesty. I
> > > believe
> > > >his administration is run by the neocons, many
> of
> > > whom
> > > >have written for years about how much they
> wanted
> > > to
> > > >go to war with Iraq. The WMD idea was a way to
> > > justify
> > > >what they wanted to do already. But again, so
> > > >apparently did many of the Demos. including
> many of
> > > >the ones travelling around to advance
> themselves by
> > > >criticizing W right now.
> > > > TL
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >--- Sunil Ramalingam
> <sunilramalingam@hotmail.com>
> > > >wrote:
> > > > > Of course Kerry is trying to have it both
> ways.
> > > But
> > > > > it's silly to pretend the Democrats are some
> > > sort of
> > > > > monolithic, single-minded party. If they
> were,
> > > > > they'd be in power right now.
> > > > >
> > > > > Tim, let go of the Democrats long enough to
> > > answer
> > > > > this question: Do you think the Bush
> > > Administration
> > > > > has been honest, either in its buildup
> towards
> > > war,
> > > > > or since that time, in presenting its
> rationales
> > > for
> > > > > the invasion of Iraq? Since they're in
> charge
> > > now,
> > > > > wouldn't you agree that it might be more
> > > important
> > > > > to look at what they're doing, rather than
> > > focusing
> > > > > on Bill Clinton's groin? I for one would
> rather
> > > > > look elsewhere, and at items with more
> > > significance.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sunil Ramalingam
> > > > >
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: Tim Lohrmann
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 7:52 PM
> > > > > To: thansen@moscow.com
> > > > > Cc: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > Subject: RE: [Vision2020] ANOTHER National
> > > Democrat
> > > > > on Iraq
> > > > >
> > > > > Tom,
> > > > > Do the politics of the messenger mean
> that
> > > Kerry
> > > > > didn't make the statement?
> > > > > TL
> > > > >
> > > > > --- Tom Hansen <thansen@moscow.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Of course, one must realize that John
> McCaslin
> > > > > > stands slightly to the right
> > > > > > of Rush Limbaugh as relfected in the
> articles
> > > > > > authored by him at:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/johnmccaslin/archive.shtml
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Tom Hansen
> > > > > > Moscow, Idaho
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: vision2020-admin@moscow.com
> > > > > > [mailto:vision2020-admin@moscow.com]On
> > > > > > > Behalf Of Tim Lohrmann
> > > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:09 PM
> > > > > > > To: vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > > > Subject: [Vision2020] ANOTHER National
> > > Democrat
> > > > > on
> > > > > > Iraq
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Visionaries,
> > > > > > > The Democrats' Iraq stances are
> looking
> > > > > > > increasingly schizophrenic, no?
> > > > > > > TL
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > INSIDE THE BELTWAY
> > > > > > > > By John McCaslin
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> ----------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > KERRY'S WAR
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Suffice it to say that Democratic
> > > > > > presidential
> > > > > > > > hopeful John Kerry has made "Iraqgate"
> the
> > > > > theme
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > his campaign.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On virtually every stump he's
> stood
> > > on
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > > week, the Massachusetts Democrat has
> > > > > complained
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > President Bush sidestepped the
> > > congressionally
> > > > > > > > approved path to war by bypassing the
> > > United
> > > > > > > > Nations, by not building an
> international
> > > > > > coalition,
> > > > > > > > and simply by not doing what it was
> that
> > > he
> > > > > had
> > > > > > > > promised to do (actually, one could
> argue
> > > that
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > senator is wrong on all three counts).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forget that Mr. Kerry voted in
> favor
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Iraq war resolution. He did so, he now
> > > says,
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > the understanding that Mr. Bush would
> > > exhaust
> > > > > > every
> > > > > > > > remedy first. What was the big hurry,
> in
> > > other
> > > > > > > > words.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But let's revisit Nov. 17, 1997,
> when
> > > > > > nobody
> > > > > > > > else in Washington except the Inside
> the
> > > > > Beltway
> > > > > > > > column led with an item headlined,
> "Finish
> > > the
> > > > > > > > mission."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Debate on whether to take out
> Saddam
> > > > > > Hussein,
> > > > > > > > the Iraqi strongman, is over as far as
> one
> > > > > > > > Democratic senator is concerned," or
> so we
> > > had
> > > > > > > > written.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
> is
> > > > > > calling
> > > > > > > > for a 'strong' military attack in
> response
> > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > Iraqi leader's 'horrific objective of
> > > amassing
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > stockpile of weapons of mass
> > > destruction.'B "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Weapons of mass destruction?
> That's
> > > what
> > > > > > Mr.
> > > > > > > > Kerry called them.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > "As the senator points out,
> military
> > > > > might
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > the only language Saddam knows B and
> > > fears.
> > > > > > 'Saddam
> > > > > > > > Hussein should pay a grave price, in a
> > > > > currency
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > he understands and values, for his
> > > > > unacceptable
> > > > > > > > behavior,' says Mr. Kerry. 'This
> should
> > > not be
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > strike consisting only of a handful of
> > > cruise
> > > > > > > > missiles hitting isolated targets
> > > primarily of
> > > > > > > > presumed symbolic value. But how long
> this
> > > > > > military
> > > > > > > > action might continue and how it may
> > > escalate
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > and how extensive it would reach are
> for
> > > the
> > > > > > [White
> > > > > > > > House National] Security Council and
> our
> > > > > allies
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > know and for Saddam Hussein to find
> out!'B
> > > "
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Just as you wished, Senator.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use
> web
> > > site
> > > > > > design software
> > > > > > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> > > > > > > List services made available by First
> Step
> > > > > > Internet,
> > > > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse
> > > since
> > > > > > 1994.
> > > > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________________
> > > > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > > > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web
> site
> > > > > design software
> > > > > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> > > > > List services made available by First Step
> > > Internet,
> > > > >
> > > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> > > 1994.
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > >
> > > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > > > >
> > >
> >
>
>/////////////////////////////////////////////////////Get
> > > > > more from the Web. FREE MSN Explorer
> download :
> > > > > http://explorer.msn.com
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >__________________________________
> > > >Do you Yahoo!?
> > > >The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
> > > >http://search.yahoo.com
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>_____________________________________________________
> > > > List services made available by First Step
> > > Internet,
> > > > serving the communities of the Palouse since
> > > 1994.
> > > > http://www.fsr.net
> > > > mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com
> > >
> >
>
>ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
> > >
> > >
>
>_________________________________________________________________
> > > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2
> months
> > > FREE*.
> > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> > >
> >
> >
> >__________________________________
> >Do you Yahoo!?
> >Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site
> design software
> >http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
>
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com