Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Udie on September 11, 2003, 04:52:59 PM
-
Looks like Clark is going to get into the race for president. My first thought is that he's a democrat and so I don't like/trust him. BUT, he's also a general and even though he was wrong with what he said on CNN durring the major Iraq fighting, he didn't have all the intel to make "the right call" he's still a general and therefore I must consider him with an open mind.
So could you dems tell me why you think I should vote for him.
-and-
Could you reps tell me why I shouldn't vote for him.
Right now I'd vote for Bush. There are many reasons, one of the biggest being that I don't think it's wize to change leaders in the middle of a war. You never know though, and Clark may have a good strategic mind. He is the ONLY dem I would even give a 2nd thought to...
-
He thinks Hillary would make a great VP?
-
Originally posted by Rude
He thinks Hillary would make a great VP?
Yer jokin' right? He said that?
-
Thanks Rude, that solved that real quick LOL :D
-
Not that this means much but I have heard several callers on radio talk shows who claim to have been under clark and that he was a scum bag who ordered them to lie about things and did not care about his men.
One was on the Sean hannedy show. I can remeber where I heard the other.
I am still on the fence, but if he did say that about clintons looser wife, he is out for me.
-
Originally posted by Rude
He thinks Hillary would make a great VP?
Rude, snaggin' fish is illegal.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Not that this means much but I have heard several callers on radio talk shows who claim to have been under clark and that he was a scum bag who ordered them to lie about things and did not care about his men.
One was on the Sean hannedy show. I can remeber where I heard the other.
I am still on the fence, but if he did say that about clintons looser wife, he is out for me.
Expect more unsupported 'facts' to come out about Wes Clark, it's a sure sign that the right is worried about him.
-
You should absolutely trust anything you hear from Hannety and Colmes
NOT
-
Originally posted by Udie
he's still a general and therefore I must consider him with an open mind.
Well, using that logic whats wrong with Kerry?
I'm still voting Bush all the way unless he does something really wrong. If its a story from CNN I wont believe it. If its from Fox you can take it to the bank! :D
-
Something about generals who are democrats just freaks me out ;)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Something about generals who are democrats just freaks me out ;)
Yeah, it's like a pro choice priest.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Something about generals who are democrats just freaks me out ;)
That's "retired" general. Clark has stated that while he was active, he was completely non-partisan. He took the time and researched the issues and party positions before settling on the democratic party as the one that he most agreed with. He does agree with some GOP positions and he doesn't agree with all of the DNC.
-
heh. we'll see. Clark's got a lot of bargaining power -- for example, more americans know who he is than know who is any other potential dem candidate (except Hilary).
As to the accusations about his conduct as a commentator during hte war: I will confess to having fully enjoyed Wes Clark's commentary during the war. My impression was: A) he was genuinely interested (perhaps too much for someone I'd was as president) in the tactical aspect. When the British crew broadcast the Um-Qasr fight live, I switched through the three US cable networks, and stuck with CNN, because of the commentators, ol' Wes knew what the hell he was talking about. When there was a shift change, he stuck on until the end of that battle. Like those of us who watched us live, he was genuinely interested in it. Now, that's not necessarily a good quality for an announcer.
I also heard the pentagon comments about "blow-dried generals" who were being counterproductive to the war effort with their criticism. The worst criticism I heard from Gen. Clark was that the US had a less than optimal number of troops on the ground. And, uh, yeah, he was correct in that assessment, and it's my guess you'd be hard-pressed to find someone beneath the pentagon who didn't want to have forces in theater.
Anyway, the character assassination began at least as early as the military action in Iraq, and probably before. Some folks will undoubtedly chime in with some interesting claims about his actions in Kosovo.
I don't know whether I'd want him as president or VP, but he does strike me as a guy with a brain and a mind of his own. I've reached the point where I view Republicans and Democrats as coke and pepsi, and I'm a beer drinker. If I have to choose, I'd want someone capable of making professional decisions without having to rely on a bunch of advisors -- who generally prefer fellatio to fidelity. But, in the words of our Supreme Court, "The individual citizen has no constitutional right to select an elector".
-
We do have the right to select the candidates, though.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Something about generals who are democrats just freaks me out ;)
Yeah that Bronze star, Purple Heart, Combat Infantry Badge and 4 stars were probably just given to him by mistake along with the Rhodes scholarship and Nato command - I mean if all those people just HAD to be wrong about the guy over a 30 year career!!
-
Not Like Ike
By George F. Will
Sunday, August 31, 2003; Page B07
For some Republicans, Howard Dean's supremacy among Democratic presidential aspirants -- $10 million expected to be raised in the July-September quarter; a 21-point lead in New Hampshire -- causes merriment. They think a Dean nomination, featuring opposition to the war, enthusiasm for higher taxes and approbation for same-sex civil unions, would mean four more years of what Dean considers the Bush-Ashcroft Terror.
Unless Dean wins. Which is unthinkable.
As unthinkable as a twice-defeated Senate candidate from Illinois, whose single congressional term was more than a decade earlier, being elected president with 39.9 percent of the vote. As unthinkable as a vice president losing a presidential race, then a California gubernatorial race, then six years later winning the presidency. As unthinkable as a movie actor becoming president.
A Dean presidency is not inconceivable. Granted, it is unlikely for reasons that make it undesirable. He may not wear well with the public. If he is half as bright as he thinks he is, he is very bright. And his is no uncertain trumpet: The brio with which he proclaims his beliefs proves that he is not paralyzed by the difference between certitude and certainty.
But there is danger as well as benefit for Dean in his very Deanness. The obverse of his high opinion of himself is his low opinion of President Bush. So he probably would sigh, or do the functional equivalent.
If Al Gore had not expressed his disdain for Bush by those exasperated sighs during the first debate, Gore might be president. But Gore had to sigh. Expressing disdain of Bush was for Gore a sensual delight, almost a metabolic necessity. It might be for Dean, too. But most of the electorate would be unforgiving of bad manners toward any president.
Another potential Dean weakness, implicating his political judgment, is suggested by believable reports that he admires retired Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO commander. Dean, more than any other possible Democratic nominee, might need a running mate who would assuage anxieties about a former Vermont governor's lack of national-security experience.
Other Democrats see Clark as a solution to a problem their party has had since the McGovernite takeover in 1972: the problem of voters' doubts about its competence in the area of national security. But the fact that Clark is the kind of military man who appeals to Democrats -- and that they appeal to him -- helps explain why the party has that problem.
Comparisons of Clark to Dwight Eisenhower are ludicrous. Eisenhower, as well-prepared as any president for the challenges of his era, had spent three years immersed in the political complexities of coalition warfare, dealing with Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, de Gaulle and others. Clark's claim to presidential stature derives from directing NATO's 78 days of war at 15,000 feet over Serbia. It was the liberals' dream war: tenuously related to U.S. security, with an overriding aim, to which much was sacrificed, to have zero U.S. fatalities.
As Clark crisscrosses the country listening for a clamor for him ("I expect to have my decision made by Sept. 19," when he visits Iowa -- feel the suspense), he compounds the confusion that began when he said on June 15 that on 9/11 "I got a call at my home" saying that when he was to appear on CNN, "You've got to say this is connected" to Iraq. "It came from the White House, it came from people around the White House. It came from all over." But who exactly called Clark?
July 1: "A fellow in Canada who is part of a Middle Eastern think tank." There is no such Canadian institution. Anyway, who "from the White House"? "I'm not going to go into those sources. . . . People told me things in confidence that I don't have any right to betray."
July 18: "No one from the White House asked me to link Saddam Hussein to Sept. 11."
Aug. 25: It came from "a Middle East think tank in Canada, the man who's the brother of a very close friend of mine in Belgium. He's very well connected to Israeli intelligence. . . . I haven't changed my position. There's no waffling on it. It's just as clear as could be."
Now Clark darkly says there are "rumors" that in February "the White House" tried -- well, "apparently" tried -- "to get me knocked off CNN." Clark still coyly refuses to say he is a Democrat but forthrightly confesses to being a "centrist." As he prepares to heed the clamor for him to join the pursuit of Dean, he is earning the description National Review has given to Sen. Bob Graham: "a deranged moderate."
georgewill@washpost.com
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
-
Originally posted by _Schadenfreude_
Yeah that Bronze star, Purple Heart, Combat Infantry Badge and 4 stars were probably just given to him by mistake along with the Rhodes scholarship and Nato command - I mean if all those people just HAD to be wrong about the guy over a 30 year career!!
Gee, guess we can't trust someone who hasn't "inhaled" or done coke while in college. Wonder if he's had special relations with any interns? Wonder if he ever went AWOL?
-
50% of the Democrat voter "base" despise the US Military, especially US Army Generals. The Democrat Party is solidly in the grasp of the Liberal-Left Wing ideologues. Clark doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democrat nomination.
Now, the Democrats could put Clark on the ticket as a VP running-mate with Howard Dean to "balance" Dean's far-Left appeal but it won't help. Dean's surly personality(among many other negatives)will doom any Dean/Clark ticket to defeat.
Which is exactly the outcome the titular heads of the Democrat Party, the Clintons, intend. The "wildcard" for the Dems remains Al Gore, who is no friend of the Clintons.
It's going to be highly entertaining once the Democrat candidates swtich from inviscerating President Bush/the country to inviscerating each other. I'm looking forward to it....
C.
-
isn't "General Clark" the Kosovo bumbler?
isn't he the one who wanted to attack the Russians at an airport and had his order ignored?
didn't he step down early?
-
Which is exactly the outcome the titular heads of the Democrat Party, the Clintons, intend. The "wildcard" for the Dems remains Al Gore, who is no friend of the Clintons.
Close but no banana, I think it's Hilary. ;)
-
Originally posted by Cabby44
50% of the Democrat voter "base" despise the US Military, especially US Army Generals. The Democrat Party is solidly in the grasp of the Liberal-Left Wing ideologues. Clark doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Democrat nomination.
Ya think so huh Cabby?? I guess I'm on the other side of the fence for the Democrap's.
As far as Dean vs Clark. I'd put my dollar on Clark.
Speaking as a Democrat
-
Originally posted by Eagler
isn't "General Clark" the Kosovo bumbler?
isn't he the one who wanted to attack the Russians at an airport and had his order ignored?
didn't he step down early?
Bumbler?
Lets see..... all objectives fulfilled... Miloslovic in Prison (soon)... no casualties........
Yep, that was him.