Clark Tells The Truth!

[Ripsnort]

Originally posted by Erlkonig
 Carlson interviewed Bush, reported specific instances of Bush's crassness and public vulgarity, and quickly found himself the focus of the Republican firing squad in the form of Karen Hughes.  That is just hilarious!  Carlson comes across as an arrogant, constantly smirking liar on Crossfire (much like Bush), but maybe he's not so bad after all.

Of course we're expected to believe ONE MAN, right?

[Erlkonig]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Of course we're expected to believe ONE MAN, right?

No, at this point in time, I wouldn't believe anything Bush says.

[Dowding]

lol Erlkonig

If we are going to pull out embarrassing pictures from the past  then how about the one showing Rumsfeld shaking hands with the anti-christ? It seems to me most politicians have dodgy associations they would rather forget.

[GRUNHERZ]

But you guys have shown those pictures - although of course it should be pointed out  Saddam was an ally at the time - kinda like Stalin was during WW2 and US politicians met with him.  

I must ask are you suggesting the US was allied with the serb genocide armies in bosnia during 1994, thats the only way you could make the Saddam comparsion?

[Dowding]

You mean the US was Allied to a man gassing women and children with chemical weapons? Say it ain't so!

[GRUNHERZ]

But isn't the current left wing position that it was Iranian gas that killed those people?

[Dowding]

The CIA says Iranian gas was involved, but what do they know? Bunch of communist degenerates.

[GRUNHERZ]

So now you trust reports from the evil CIA? Remember pappa Bush ran the CIA, they cant be trusted by a fine leftist in good standing like you.

[Dowding]

... and let's revert to type.

"Boosh, Amreeka, deth to!!!!!!"

Not far off am I?

This is like deja vu. I'm sure someone else tried the 'now you trust CIA information, but you didn't before' line. I asked them to find examples to support their assertion. They failed. Do you want to give it a go?

[GRUNHERZ]

Well I know you dont trust the US government... Or are you backtracking on that and now you really love em? So why should the CIA be any different?

[Dowding]

So you're not going to take up my challenge?

You're such an extremist. It's either love or hate, trust implicitly or despise absolutely. No grey areas, no areas of doubt. You resemble the Orwellian death bed quote to a remarkable extent.

Trust the US government on what? To follow an agenda that they think benefits the US or benefits the world? I'm pretty sure on point one, but not completely convinced on point two. As for the CIA - I have an open mind when it comes to these things. That they come to that conclusion must mean there is something there.

I can also recognise that governmental 'dossiers' don't neccessarily reflect the intelligence community's conclusions on a particular subject.

[Torque]

Originally posted by Dowding
You mean the US was Allied to a man gassing women and children with chemical weapons? Say it ain't so!

Isn't that in violation of the Geneva Convention?

[Preon1]

Gen Clark?  HA!  Listen to the guy speak (being in the Air Force, I've been forced to).  Read the first couple of chapters in his latest book (that was just out of curiosity).  He's a whiner.  He's really good at looking back and, with near perfect hind sight, pointing out people's mistakes.  He's also fairly good at pointing out successes.  However, when it comes to solutions and policy changes, I have yet to hear an original thought from him.  I don't understand why he is so popular in the Army.  If he stays in this race, that will come out.

 

In any case, my worry is this: The world already thinks we've gone ultra militant.  What will they think if we toss aside our current president in favor of a former general?  Granted, the worst of these thoughts will come from the lower ends of the education ladder...

[Toad]

Here's the part of the TIME article that raised my eyebrow the highest:

What's most striking about the Clark boomlet is how little his supporters really know about the candidate in whom they have invested such sudden and stratospheric hopes—a man who didn't declare himself a Democrat until a few weeks ago and who says he isn't sure whether he voted for a Democrat for President before Bill Clinton ran.

"He can save this Golly-gee nation from self-destruction," declares New York Congressman Charles Rangel, who is arranging a meeting for Clark with the Congressional Black Caucus, possibly as early as this week. But Rangel acknowledges that he has never met Clark in person (they have talked on the phone) and didn't know a thing about Clark until he started catching the general's criticism of the Iraq war on cnn.[/i] The same was true of Sylvia Gillis, 57, an insurance broker who was among the 50 or so people who gathered to toast Clark's candidacy last Wednesday night at Frankie Z's Clark Bar in Chicago. "My mouth dropped open—a military man taking this antiwar position," she said. "He seemed honest, trustworthy, well versed and intellectual. My dream come true."

It's quite possible I could end up voting for Clark if he was the nominee, particularly if the WMD issue remains unverified.

However, the knee-jerk "we found a GENERAL that opposed the war! Nominate him!" sentiments expressed here strike me as the very thing that's wrong with US politics.

Uh... folks... don't you want to know what he says about the rest of the issues first?

I sure do!

[CMC Airboss]

This is what Clark said:

CLARK: ....there was a concerted effort during the fall of 2001 starting immediately after 9/11 to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Saddam Hussein.

RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

CLARK: Well, it came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over. I got a call on 9/11. I was on CNN, and I got a call at my home ........

Who writes this guy's talking points?   Baghdad Bob??

Sheesh

Airboss