Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrLars on September 16, 2003, 12:07:29 PM

Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: MrLars on September 16, 2003, 12:07:29 PM
http://makeashorterlink.com/?O2FE13AE5

For me, it's a great day!
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: AWMac on September 16, 2003, 12:14:07 PM
Here we go again.... another piece 'o crap Democrat from Arkansas...  when will it ever end?  :rolleyes:
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: rpm on September 16, 2003, 12:14:53 PM
I think Clark is the best looking candidate the Dems have. Bush definitely has a serious contender to recon with if Clark get the nomination.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Frogm4n on September 16, 2003, 12:21:22 PM
Uhoh another oxford graduate from arkansas. Wonder how the divider not a uniter is going to personally attack a 4 star general.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Dune on September 16, 2003, 12:28:22 PM
Quote
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
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: rpm on September 16, 2003, 12:28:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Uhoh another oxford graduate from arkansas. Wonder how the divider not a uniter is going to personally attack a 4 star general.
Bring up his War Record! :lol
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: ra on September 16, 2003, 12:33:32 PM
Does anyone know Clark's views on the major political issues, or does that even matter?  Dem's are desperate.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Westy on September 16, 2003, 12:38:56 PM
Not sure RA.  I see some are excited about him being picked (and since it's Lars I find this warrants looking into), some dislike him (and will no matter who it is simply because it's "the other party") and yet there are others who think he's simply "dreamy"  and cute   :)
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Udie on September 16, 2003, 12:40:00 PM
Quote
Originally posted by ra
Does anyone know Clark's views on the major political issues, or does that even matter?  Dem's are desperate.




 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A18454-2003Sep16?language=printer



well clinton and gore's names were plastered all through this article about Clark,  so take a guess.  He's basicly got the same team as clinton/gore.  So I doubt he'll get much consideration from me.  It makes me wonder if the clintons think clark is their ticket to holding on to power.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Lizard3 on September 16, 2003, 02:51:12 PM
I heard the right admirable Senator Beitch is going to play a major part in the campaign. Looks like another stepping stone for Presidente' Hilarious.
Title: which wes is it?
Post by: Eagler on September 16, 2003, 03:12:57 PM
the "war hero" who tried to start WW3 with the Russians in Kosovo or the talkin head from CNN?
(http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark/story.jpg)
Title: Which Dubya is he?
Post by: rpm on September 16, 2003, 03:24:18 PM
The War Hero that failed to show up for duty or the man that went to Iraq without a post war plan?(http://increasevalue.com/ccimages/photos/bush-bruisefull.jpg)
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Frogm4n on September 16, 2003, 03:41:47 PM
oh eagler always beliveing in stupid crap, so so moronic ( only a complete idiot would believe the russians would have started a war over kosovo).  
Clark also has a masters in economics and philosophy. A student of keyensian economics, and has worked with a broad group of countrys while he was in NATO as the Supreme allied commander.

Oh and i will bring up his war record:
silver star, 2 bronze stars, purple heart from vietnam.

oh and what was that? we didnt lose 1 american in combat in kosovo.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: midnight Target on September 16, 2003, 03:59:11 PM
Quote
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.


Will is the idiot's idiot. This looks like it wasn't a good war 'cause we forgot to have casualties... :rolleyes:
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: k2cok on September 16, 2003, 04:09:25 PM
Compared to President AWOL, he looks very good.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: john9001 on September 16, 2003, 04:16:45 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Frogm4n

Oh and i will bring up his war record:
silver star, 2 bronze stars, purple heart from vietnam.
 


Pvt Lynch has a bronze star and purple heart, maybe she should run for president?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Frogm4n on September 16, 2003, 04:25:03 PM
they didnt had medals out like candy in vietnam, at least i dont know of any freebee's like hers.
Go vote for your great president bush again while he lies about every single thing during the debates, like in 2000.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Udie on September 16, 2003, 04:27:49 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Frogm4n
they didnt had medals out like candy in vietnam, at least i dont know of any freebee's like hers.
Go vote for your great president bush again while he lies about every single thing during the debates, like in 2000.



let me guess,  you like the clintons?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Dune on September 16, 2003, 04:39:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Will is the idiot's idiot. This looks like it wasn't a good war 'cause we forgot to have casualties... :rolleyes:


Come on MT, I expect much better from you than that.

;)
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: ra on September 16, 2003, 04:46:26 PM
Quote
...A student of keyensian economics...

Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Eagler on September 16, 2003, 05:01:23 PM
what political office has the gen held?


i know, it doesn't matter right?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: rpm on September 16, 2003, 05:46:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
what political office has the gen held?


i know, it doesn't matter right?


Exactly 1 less than your hero.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GtoRA2 on September 16, 2003, 06:05:37 PM
"they didnt had medals out like candy in vietnam, at least i dont know of any freebee's like hers."
Frogy
 Go read a book about Vietnam. Not that I was there but I have read in several places the soldiers in the field held REMFs in such low regard cause they would give themselves medals without earning them. Some even considered only the Medal of Honor and the combat infantrymans badge real.

I am not saying Clark did not earn his, I know very little about the man, and will find out more before I make my call. But still.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: MrLars on September 16, 2003, 06:27:23 PM
I suspect that most openminded people here will accept that Clark is a qualified and viable canidate for the Democratic party once he gets the media to dissect his views and ideas for future policies.

Right now what we're getting here is the knee jerk reactions of those who may be secretly wishing that we had a single party system...or Coulterites as I like to call them.

Time will tell, I am sooo looking forward to a Clark/Bush debate :)
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: midnight Target on September 16, 2003, 06:32:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Dune
Come on MT, I expect much better from you than that.

;)


Yea it was weak, but on the other hand... marginally insipid.

(rushed today, actual work to do at work.... go figure :) )
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Gadfly on September 16, 2003, 06:57:18 PM
I say GO CLARK!  Best thing to happen for the Republicans in Years.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Frogm4n on September 16, 2003, 07:01:13 PM
No the best thing to happen for the republican's is the masses buying into the lies comming out of bush's mouth. Clinton lied about sex, bush lies about reasons for going to war, our economy, and pretty much everything else he has ever said.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Gadfly on September 16, 2003, 07:09:16 PM
Frogboy, go away for 10 years and some classes in history, economics and World Civ, please.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Frogm4n on September 16, 2003, 07:12:48 PM
actually gadfly maybe you should as well.
And what does that have anything to do with having a pathological liar as president.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Gadfly on September 16, 2003, 07:17:52 PM
Perhaps your understanding of the world?
Title: No, No, No
Post by: k2cok on September 16, 2003, 07:19:03 PM
The correct terminology is serial liar Frogm4n.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Yeager on September 16, 2003, 07:32:03 PM
i look forward to hearing what he has to say but i must admit the fact that he considers himself a democrat is a big strike against his intellect.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: B17Skull12 on September 16, 2003, 07:59:03 PM
what are politics?:D
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Gadfly on September 16, 2003, 08:02:37 PM
No, I know some intelligent Democrats-Your intellect has nothing to do with your politics, just how you are able to present ithem and back it up with facts.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Sandman on September 16, 2003, 08:10:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
Will is the idiot's idiot. This looks like it wasn't a good war 'cause we forgot to have casualties... :rolleyes:



I thought that this particular objective seemed silly. The notion of going to war and expecting zero casualities.

I firmly believe that if it's not worth dying for, we should not be there.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Gadfly on September 16, 2003, 08:23:44 PM
Remember this, Frogboy-Everyone who is older than you has had the benefit of being your age, but the reverse is not true.  I have met many young people online  and in person who were both smart and mature enough to know that they lacked experience, and the wisdom that that can bring.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: ra on September 16, 2003, 08:26:37 PM
Quote
I am sooo looking forward to a Clark/Bush debate

You may have to settle for Clark/Cheney.  If the Clintons picked this guy, they don't intend for him to take HER spot.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: B17Skull12 on September 16, 2003, 09:16:46 PM
what...........what........if hilliary became president? AHHHHHH the horror!
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 16, 2003, 09:27:13 PM
I'm just loving all these new military respecting liberals... :rofl
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Eagler on September 16, 2003, 09:32:41 PM
CLINTON OFFICIALS MEET WITH CLARK


Among those invited to the meeting with Clark were officials of President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s administration, including Mark Fabiani, a former White House spokesman.


Several members of the team that helped take Clinton from governor of Arkansas to president in 1992 were in Little Rock and had been talking with Clark.


nuff said
Title: Like Bush is a BIG strike against Republicans intelligence?
Post by: k2cok on September 16, 2003, 09:33:16 PM
Lol, you left yourself wide open on that one yeager. :p

Quote
Originally posted by Yeager
i look forward to hearing what he has to say but i must admit the fact that he considers himself a democrat is a big strike against his intellect.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Sandman on September 16, 2003, 10:03:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm just loving all these new military respecting liberals... :rofl
And some of the liberals are even veterans.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 16, 2003, 10:04:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
And some of the liberals are even veterans.


So?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Sandman on September 16, 2003, 10:05:57 PM
There you have it.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 16, 2003, 10:07:08 PM
Have what?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: AKIron on September 16, 2003, 11:00:42 PM
Quote
Originally posted by rpm371
Exactly 1 less than your hero.


You don't mean Bush do ya? You did know he was Governor of Texas right?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Frogm4n on September 17, 2003, 01:06:18 AM
What does the governer of texas do exactly? meet with his advisors every other year?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: midnight Target on September 17, 2003, 01:06:44 AM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Have what?


It.

sheesh... obvious!
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 17, 2003, 01:08:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by midnight Target
It.

sheesh... obvious!


LOL :)  So you coming to the con or not?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: -dead- on September 17, 2003, 01:38:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
Pvt Lynch has a bronze star and purple heart, maybe she should run for president?
She should really - she's certainly got that whole Ronald Regan "I cannot recall anything whatsoever" vibe down pat. ;)
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Montezuma on September 17, 2003, 02:59:50 AM
Quote
Originally posted by john9001
Pvt Lynch has a bronze star and purple heart, maybe she should run for president?


Was she also first in her class at West Point?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 17, 2003, 03:03:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Montezuma
Was she also first in her class at West Point?


West Point? Wasnt that the school of evil US imperialist pig kommanders just last week?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Dowding on September 17, 2003, 05:40:19 AM
When in doubt, drop into that dull over-used  'put words in other people's mouths' BS, eh Grunherz?

Clark seems like a political animal with the credentials to actually use his military record to his advantage, instead of just embellishing it. He also sounds like he possesses quite an intellect.

I hear he will have a tough time - he has a fraction of the funds of the other big players.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 17, 2003, 05:47:08 AM
Oh poor me I must have imagined all the left wing vitriol towards the military the last few years...  :rolleyes:

But hey I'm not naive enough to think you guys will be concerned with your hipocrisy..
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Dowding on September 17, 2003, 06:02:49 AM
You do enjoy your fantasies, Grunherz. The only vitriol I see is that which is aimed at mythical BBS users who supposedly hate the military.

It's funny then, that during the Iraq war, despite the number of people who were against it I didn't see one comment criticizing the people on the ground or not offering support (aside from that weird -am- guy). Certainly, nothing like that came from people who had countrymen on the ground. Which doesn't exactly tie in with your perceived vision of BBS users sniping at the military from some grassy knoll.

I think, in your simple-minded, deluded view of the world, you confuse criticism of the deployment of troops by a particular government as criticism of the troops/military themselves.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 17, 2003, 06:05:38 AM
Of course none of you hate the US military, that was like so last week... :lol

I take it all back.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Dowding on September 17, 2003, 06:10:47 AM
Why would anyone hate the US military? They are a tool of the current administration. They are not some independent body accountable only to themselves.

I don't even hate the Bush administration. Disdain would be a better description of my feelings towards it supplemented with outright revulsion for some of its members.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 17, 2003, 06:12:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Dowding
Why would anyone hate the US military?


Good question, I think they must be nutz..
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Lance on September 17, 2003, 08:44:41 AM
Uh, why exactly would anyone not want to enlist the help of the Clintons  and their campaign team?  Don't even republicans grudgingly admit that Clinton & co.  knew how to run for office?  Clark would be an idiot not to get their campaign help if he had the opportunity.

Now if he starts picking members of Clinton's administration to be his vice president, sec. of defense, etc...
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Rude on September 17, 2003, 08:53:40 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Frogm4n
No the best thing to happen for the republican's is the masses buying into the lies comming out of bush's mouth. Clinton lied about sex, bush lies about reasons for going to war, our economy, and pretty much everything else he has ever said.


You seem like a bitter little fella....you're liberal people loving heart seems to be filled with hate. How will you feel when Bush is re-elected....I look forward to your opinions.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: AKIron on September 17, 2003, 09:51:06 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Frogm4n
What does the governer of texas do exactly? meet with his advisors every other year?


Couple things he didn't do; use the state troopers to pick up sex or run for reelection in the middle of his term.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Toad on September 17, 2003, 10:12:46 AM
Clark's a very intelligent guy. Beyond that, I think he's got some character and integrity which would make him pretty unique on the US political scene. Don't get me wrong, you don't get four stars without being an able politician with all that that entails. I just doubt  that he could ever bring himself to look straight into the camera  and parse the word "is". I don't think his internal moral compass would let him. Some of that "Duty, Honor, Country" stuff becomes just too engrained.

However, the odds of him getting the Democratic nomination are less than remote. VP, maybe.. to cover the Dem's inevitable ticket weakness on military matters.

But trust the DNC to put somebody unelectable out front to placate the lunatic fringe elements of the party that have convinced themselves they are "mainstream America".

Wouldn't suprise me if I end up voting Libertarian this time around. Hey... maybe Clark will go Libertarian!  ;)
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: AKIron on September 17, 2003, 10:43:25 AM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad
Wouldn't suprise me if I end up voting Libertarian this time around. Hey... maybe Clark will go Libertarian!  ;)


Maybe we can get Ross Perot to run again. ;)

We have him to thank for Clinton.
Title: All I can say is.
Post by: k2cok on September 17, 2003, 10:57:11 AM
We better elect a Democrat in 04, if we don't the door is wide open for Hillary in 08. :eek:
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Eagler on September 17, 2003, 12:12:01 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Lance
Uh, why exactly would anyone not want to enlist the help of the Clintons  and their campaign team?  ...


uh, maybe cause they are a bunch of crooks?

maybe the chinese can give the good ole gen all the money & support he needs in exchange for a few more military secrets eh?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Yeager on September 17, 2003, 01:34:36 PM
beware of any military man that aligns himself with the party of clinton/dean/sharpton/schumer/.....hell, beware of any man that does so.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Toad on September 17, 2003, 01:45:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by AKIron
Maybe we can get Ross Perot to run again. ;)

We have him to thank for Clinton.


Whale, Hale!

Looky heyear Iron!

Clinton was the dang bestest ever prezeedent we evar haid!

Just asks arond on this year bored. Thar's plenty that will tell ya that.

He made the grass grow and the flowrs blume.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: muckmaw on September 17, 2003, 01:52:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Toad


He made the grass grow and the flowrs blume.


That may not be the case, but if nothing else he did get tulips on his organ.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: MrLars on September 17, 2003, 02:42:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Eagler
CLINTON OFFICIALS MEET WITH CLARK


Among those invited to the meeting with Clark were officials of President Bill Clinton (news - web sites)'s administration, including Mark Fabiani, a former White House spokesman.


Several members of the team that helped take Clinton from governor of Arkansas to president in 1992 were in Little Rock and had been talking with Clark.


nuff said


Yeah, Cod forbid he puts together a winning team to help him get elected....the Bu****es are frightened I see.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Eagler on September 17, 2003, 02:51:11 PM
Quote
Originally posted by MrLars
Yeah, Cod forbid he puts together a winning team to help him get elected....the Bu****es are frightened I see.


frightened?

nope - just pointing out the company he keeps
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: MrLars on September 17, 2003, 03:45:19 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I'm just loving all these new military respecting liberals... :rofl


Just which ones would that be Grun? Seems that that broom isn't a very good paint brush, Vets are getting behind Clark not only because of this quote:

We've got to understand that in American foreign policy, force is the last resort,” he told the audience. “Yes, you may have to use it. You may even have to use it preemptively. But the use of force is not the guiding principle of American foreign policy. Military might is not the guiding foreign policy principle.”

...but since his being a combat veteran he's less likely to commit our forces unless it's truly a last resort...no cowboy antics from this straight shooter!
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Ripsnort on September 17, 2003, 03:51:55 PM
Wesley Clark fundraised for Republicans in 2001, for Pulaski County Republican Party (Little Rock)... December 2001: Clark registers to vote in Little Rock as independent. Now he's a democrat? Hmmmm....
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Udie on September 17, 2003, 03:55:08 PM
Was watching fox today at lunch and they had another general on who is a friend of Clark's for 20 years.  She asked him,  " why was the general fired after the war in Kosovo?"   He didn't answer, just tried to spin around it,  no follow up questioning though :(


 Why was he fired?
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: MrLars on September 17, 2003, 03:55:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Wesley Clark fundraised for Republicans in 2001, for Pulaski County Republican Party (Little Rock)... December 2001: Clark registers to vote in Little Rock as independent. Now he's a democrat? Hmmmm....


Yep...blame it on Bush  :)
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Eagler on September 17, 2003, 03:56:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by MrLars
...no cowboy antics from this straight shooter!


hmm

wasn't to straight when he dribbled this out:

Meet the Press - 6/15/2003

MR. RUSSERT: Hyped by whom?

GEN. CLARK: Well, I...

MR. RUSSERT: The CIA, or the president or vice president? Secretary of
Defense, who?

GEN. CLARK: I think it was an effort to convince the American people to do
something, and I think there was an immediate determination right after
9/11 that Saddam Hussein was one of the keys to winning the war on terror.
Whether it was the need just to strike out or whether he was a linchpin in
this, 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.

MR. RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?

GEN. 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 saying, "You got to say this is
connected. This is state-sponsored terrorism. This has to be connected to
Saddam Hussein."
I said, "But -- I'm willing to say it but what's your
evidence?" And I never got any evidence. And these were people who had --
Middle East think tanks and people like this and it was a lot of pressure
to connect this and there were a lot of assumptions made. But I never
personally saw the evidence and didn't talk to anybody who had the
evidence to make that connection.

=======
:confused:
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Montezuma on September 17, 2003, 11:11:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
West Point? Wasnt that the school of evil US imperialist pig kommanders just last week?


Please do not make it appear that you are attributing such whoopee lies to me in the future.

Thanks.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: MrCoffee on September 18, 2003, 10:10:22 PM
Go Westly Clark

:D
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: Yeager on September 19, 2003, 12:54:18 AM
my dominant paradigm is devinitely gonna get subverted by this gen clark guy.  lets see, a military hero 4 star general.  problem is he is from little rock arkansas and a democrat.......something is afoul here and it aint the turkey.

whats his position on gun control?  is the 2nd amendmant strictly for uniformed types or what?  thats the kicker for me.  if the guy doesnt want me to have a gun then he is a real downer.....
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 19, 2003, 12:57:55 AM
He supports the second amendment - therefore he is a gun nut and is evil.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: 10Bears on September 19, 2003, 03:28:45 AM
Clark Says He Would Have Voted for War
By ADAM NAGOURNEY


ORT LAUDERDALE, Fla., Sept. 18 — Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he would have supported the Congressional resolution that authorized the United States to invade Iraq, even as he presented himself as one of the sharpest critics of the war effort in the Democratic presidential race.

General Clark also said in an interview that he would probably oppose President Bush's request for $87 billion to finance the recovery effort in Iraq, though he said he could see circumstances in which he might support sending even more money into the country.

On both the question of the initial authorization and the latest request for financing, General Clark said he was conflicted. He offered the case on both sides of the argument, as he appeared to struggle to stake out positions on issues that have bedeviled four members of Congress who supported the war and are now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination.

General Clark said that he would have advised members of Congress to support the authorization of war but that he thought it should have had a provision requiring President Bush to return to Congress before actually invading. Democrats sought that provision without success.

"At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question," General Clark said.

A moment later, he said: "I don't know if I would have or not. I've said it both ways because when you get into this, what happens is you have to put yourself in a position — on balance, I probably would have voted for it."

Moving to fill in the blanks of his candidacy a day after he announced for president, General Clark also said that he had been a Republican who had turned Democratic after listening to the early campaign appeals of a fellow Arkansan, Bill Clinton.

Indeed, after caustically comparing the actions of the Bush administration to what he described as the abuses of Richard M. Nixon, he said that he voted for Mr. Nixon in 1972. He also said he had voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980 and 1984.

The general's remarks in a free-rolling 90-minute airborne interview suggested the extent of the adjustment he faces in becoming a presidential candidate.

"Mary, help!" he called to his press secretary, Mary Jacoby, at the front of the plane, as he faced questions about Iraq. "Come back and listen to this."

At one point, Ms. Jacoby interrupted the interview, which included four reporters who were traveling on the general's jet, to make certain that General Clark's views on the original Iraq resolution were clear.

"I want to clarify — we're moving quickly here," Ms. Jacoby said. "You said you would have voted for the resolution as leverage for a U.N.-based solution."

"Right," General Clark responded. "Exactly."

General Clark said he saw his position on the war as closer to that of members of Congress who supported the resolution — Representative Richard A. Gephardt of Missouri and Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina — than that of Howard Dean, the former Vermont governor who has been the leading antiwar candidate in the race.

Still, asked about Dr. Dean's criticism of the war, General Clark responded: "I think he's right. That in retrospect we should never have gone in there. I didn't want to go in there either. But on the other hand, he wasn't inside the bubble of those who were exposed to the information."

And at a brief stop at a delicatessen on a trip here to raise money, his very first campaign appearances, he lashed into Mr. Bush's war effort with language that was easily as tough as any that Dr. Dean has used in presenting himself as the antiwar candidate.

"We are going to ask, `Why are we engaged in Iraq, Mr. President — tell the truth,' " he said, standing on a chair. "Why, Mr. President? Was it because Saddam Hussein was assisting the hijackers? Was it because Saddam Hussein had a nuclear weapon that might bring a nuclear cloud?"

The crowd shouted back answers. "Oil!" one person yelled. "Halliburton!" yelled another.

General Clark said: "We don't know. And that's the truth. And we have to ask that question."

On the plane, General Clark also said he might support changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy governing the presence of gay men and lesbians in the military.

"I'd like to see the military relook the policy," he said. "I didn't say change it — I said relook it."

For example, General Clark said, the military might examine adopting a "don't ask, don't misbehave" policy patterned after one that he said was in place in Britain. Asked what the "don't misbehave" standard meant, the general responded, "I'm not going to set a policy with you winging it in the back of an airplane."

General Clark said his domestic priorities would include health insurance and rolling back parts of Mr. Bush's tax cuts. "I don't see why we can't have health insurance for every single American," he said.

Asked how he would pay for it, General Clark said he was open to some cuts in the budget he is more familiar with — the Pentagon's. "The armed forces are a want machine," he said. "They are structured to develop want."

General Clark said he had enjoyed a visit to New Hampshire over the summer that he said signaled to him how much he would like campaigning. He compared meeting New Hampshire voters to his work as the NATO commander.

"It's like what we did in the military when we went to the motor pool and talked to the troops — only better," he said.
Title: WooHoo, Clarks in!
Post by: GRUNHERZ on September 19, 2003, 03:39:14 AM
What a politican.