Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: MrLars on September 24, 2003, 01:11:01 PM
-
"Limbaugh is full of ****." -- Wesley Clark
Said to a supporter at a fundraiser in NY Monday night.
Rush is trying his best to demonize Clark but every 'fact' he spouts is debunked....what a scumbucket Lumbaugh is.
The censored text is a reference to fecal mater.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
"Limbaugh is full of ****." -- Wesley Clark
Real debunker there all right.
-
Are you Dems still going on about Clark? Isn't it about time for a new flavor-of-the week?
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Real debunker there all right.
He shouldn't stoop to debunking lies, he has his supporters who do this task willingly.
-
I like to read a good debunking as much as the next guy. Did you read this or hear it? Got a link?
FWIW, I've never been a fan of Rush's. However, the few things I have heard from him made perfect sense.
-
the "whitehouse told me to connect 911 to Iraq" lie?
rush will still be on the airwaves long after clark fades from the spotlight
-
Im not a fan eithe, but I find myself agreeing with some of what he says.
What did he say about Clarke that was debunked? Just curious.
Anyone put any weight into the belief that Hillary will toss her hat in as soon a Bush appears beatable? Some folks are saying Clarke is being fluffed to be her Veep.
Thoughts?
-
Originally posted by ra
Are you Dems still going on about Clark? Isn't it about time for a new flavor-of-the week?
Actualy it's the fear that Clark imposes on the right that keeps his name in the news as much as his campaign does. Everyday now there's a new attack in him...that isn't because he's just the flavor d' jour.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
I like to read a good debunking as much as the next guy. Did you read this or hear it? Got a link?
What issue you want to hear the facts on? There have been several debated here but when lie is debunked it gets little notice here for some odd reason.
-
Debunk this...
(http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Rush is trying his best to demonize Clark but every 'fact' he spouts is debunked....what a scumbucket Lumbaugh is.
I dunno, just curious as to what Limbaugh said that was debunked.
-
MrLars.....
Please respond to the lie regarding the whitehouse call on 911.
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Debunk this...
(http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.jpg)
I'm having trouble seeing the significance of this photo.
-
Originally posted by Sandman_SBM
I'm having trouble seeing the significance of this photo.
It's pretty signifigant....
U.S. diplomats warned Clark not to go to Bosnian Serb military headquarters to meet Mladic, considered by U.S. intelligence as the mastermind of the Srebrenica massacre of Muslim civilians (and still at large, sought by NATO peacekeeping forces). Besides the exchange of hats, they drank wine together, and Mladic gave Clark a bottle of brandy and a pistol.
This was what U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke's team seeking peace in Yugoslavia tried to avoid by instituting the "Clark Rule": whenever the general is found talking alone to a Serb, Croat or Muslim, make sure an American civilian official rushes to his side. It produced some comic opera dashes by diplomats.
After Clark's meeting with Mladic, the State Department cabled embassies throughout Europe that there was no change in policy toward the Bosnian Serbs. The incident cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia, even though he protested Clark's course. The upshot came months later, when Serbian dictator Slobodan Milosevic, in bitter negotiations with Holbrooke, handed Clark back his Army hat.
After such behavior, Clark was never on the promotion list to full general until he appealed to Defense Secretary William Perry and Gen. John Shalikashvili, chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He got his fourth star and became commander in chief of the Southern Command. His last post, as NATO supreme commander, found this infantry officer leading an air war against the Serbs over Kosovo. Clark argued with NATO colleagues by insisting on a ground troops option and complaining about the slowly graduated bombing campaign. He was pushed out abruptly by Defense Secretary William Cohen.
That's cut from the article that pic came from.
-
This is what Clark said:
CLARK: 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.
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 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.
Notice that Clark said the "concerted effort...to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Suddam Hussein" came from the White House, people around the White House, and "all over". He didn't say the phone call came from the White House. (It wouldn't make much sense for him to say that the call came from "all over".)
I'm not saying he isn't a liar, (he does want to become a politician), but at least he didn't lie about a "call from the White House".
-
I agree it is significant. I'm hearing rumors from all over that Clark carries a lot of baggage that hasn't come out yet. A lot of it relates to matters of judgement and ethics. Some military types say he is a certifiable nut case ... although I haven't yet seen proof beyond what is already widely known about him.
Here is what Dick Morris had to say about Clark:
Clark (http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/3151.htm)
-
I didnt think you would - he's your party's boy afterall now isnt he? I suppose you do know what the Serb armies were doing in Bosnia in 94 when this meeting happend, I suppose you know that Wes' hat buddy in that picture is General Ratko Mladic - allready known to be a nutorious criminal and a savage, I suppose you know Clark was repeatedly advised by his superiors not to meet with him etc etc etc. But he did and they had a hell of a time exchanging complements and gifts...
I was positive about his entry last week especilally considering the weak Democratic pool running now. Wes seemed to be a well educated, experienced, reasonable moderate but seeing that picture and reading up on the events that led up to it makes me seriously question his judgement and his ethics.
-
Originally posted by popeye
This is what Clark said:
CLARK: 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.
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 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.
Notice that Clark said the "concerted effort...to pin 9/11 and the terrorism problem on Suddam Hussein" came from the White House, people around the White House, and "all over". He didn't say the phone call came from the White House. (It wouldn't make much sense for him to say that the call came from "all over".)
I'm not saying he isn't a liar, (he does want to become a politician), but at least he didn't lie about a "call from the White House".
Yeah except the one flaw to that argument is that Bush and Co. never tried to connect SH. From day one they said they had no evidence to support that claim. So it very well could be that whole part of the interview was a lie, not saying it is, just sayin.
-
Originally posted by popeye
I'm not saying he isn't a liar, (he does want to become a politician), but at least he didn't lie about a "call from the White House".
I guess that depends on what "call from the White House" means. You know, whether he meant "the White House" or "the white house." ;)
Actually it sounds to me like he was trying to attribute it to the White House but then decided he shouldn't be quite so specific about it. I remember a politician like that.
-
Originally posted by Eagler
the "whitehouse told me to connect 911 to Iraq" lie?
rush will still be on the airwaves long after clark fades from the spotlight
Already answered by Pops...deleted message
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I didnt think you would - he's your party's boy afterall now isnt he? I suppose you do know what the Serb armies were doing in Bosnia in 94 when this meeting happend, I suppose you know that Wes' hat buddy in that picture is General Ratko Mladic - allready known to be a nutorious criminal and a savage, I suppose you know Clark was repeatedly advised by his superiors not to meet with him etc etc etc. But he did and they had a hell of a time exchanging complements and gifts...
Generals don't answer to the State Department. This just in.
-
Rush lies about pretty much everything. Why should anyone give that guy any credibility. He is just another draft dodger as you republicans like to point out.
-
Originally posted by Frogm4n
Rush lies about pretty much everything. Why should anyone give that guy any credibility. He is just another draft dodger as you republicans like to point out.
prove it :D
-
Originally posted by Udie
prove it :D
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030918Davis.html
-
I'm having trouble seeing how saying "he's full of ****" is some sort of debate coup.
Don't listen to rush but if the frog boy thinks he lies about everything then he might be worth listening to.
lazs
-
Originally posted by popeye
This is what Clark said:
CLARK: 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.
RUSSERT: By who? Who did that?
CLARK: Well, it came from the White House,...
he'd fit right in..
what is the meaning of "came from the White House"?
what is the meaning of "is"?
he immeditely generalized it because he knew he had just screwed up on national television.. "It came from all over."
maybe it was Saddam that called his CNN show :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MrLars
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030918Davis.html
I like the sock puppet analogy :)
-
Originally posted by MrLars
http://www.americanpolitics.com/20030918Davis.html
"In accusing Clark of begging for instead of earning his fourth star, Limbaugh is accusing Clark of violating Article 133 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: Conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman.
Generally, if one makes such a serious charge, one backs it up with evidence. To no surprise to anyone familiar with Limbaugh's style, Limbaugh provided no evidence to back up his charge."
That's pretty weak. Just because Rush didn't back up his claim doesn't debunk it. Based on the delay of his promotion and his subsequent sucking up to the Clinton's I'm betting that Rush was right on target. Furthermore, Article 133 doesn't cover "begging for a promotion."
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I'm having trouble seeing how saying "he's full of ****" is some sort of debate coup.
Don't listen to rush but if the frog boy thinks he lies about everything then he might be worth listening to.
lazs
I think ya might be onto sumpin there lazs.
-
but this didn't seem to be all that complimentary. Explains the hat thing too...
Brass Ambition (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/story/0,9171,1101030929-488811,00.html)
And I didn't think this one was either:
The General Jumps In (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/story/0,9171,1101030929-488778,00.html)
He's apparently already learned the "floppy fish" evasives though...
Only a day after his announcement, Clark told reporters on his campaign plane that if he had been in Congress last fall, he probably would have voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. In a single sentence he had undermined the rationale for his whole candidacy—at least for those who saw him as Howard Dean with stars and a war record. Clark seems to have realized this himself, for the next day he reversed course. "I would never have voted for this war," he told the Associated Press. "I've gotten a very consistent record on this." His flip-flop delighted some of his rivals. "If it doesn't get any better than the first 24 hours," says a strategist for another Democrat, "he's going to be gone in two weeks." Dean's campaign manager, Joe Trippi, is warier. "The other campaigns make a mistake if they don't take him seriously," Trippi says. "It's going to take a month or two to know what to make of him." ...
...The mishaps did little to quell the private talk in Washington that Clark is a little bit, well, odd. Some saw a touch of Ross Perot in the man who implied in June that the Bush White House had pressured him to link 9/11 to Saddam Hussein, and then backtracked by saying the call had actually come from a Canadian think tank with access to "inside intelligence information." He also claimed the Administration had tried to get him fired from cnn. Clark insisted to TIME that he had never said that was anything more than a rumor.
Just Sayin'
-
http://www.losaltosonline.com/articles/2003/09/23/news/community/news01.txt
What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"
"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote."
'Ole Wes is from Arkansas sho' nuff.......
You may end up being better off with Rev. Al
-
dittoheads coming out of the woodwork to defend fat boy lol. Megadittoes!! THey have their work cut out for them, as it isnt hard to debunk mr. "my football knee/er I mean the cyst on my bellybutton made me 4-f"
Rush isnt fit to polish Clark's boots, (not that he would know how) and that goes for the rest of the draft dodging chickenhawks, bushie jr included. No shortage of hypocrisy from the right, as usual
but thats just one man's opinion. carry on.
strk
-
Originally posted by lazs2
I'm having trouble seeing how saying "he's full of ****" is some sort of debate coup.
Don't listen to rush but if the frog boy thinks he lies about everything then he might be worth listening to.
lazs
Solid point
-
Originally posted by AKIron
That's pretty weak. Just because Rush didn't back up his claim doesn't debunk it.
Well, Ted Kennedy has said some pretty provactive things recently but because he hasn't backed up his statements with hard facts yet it could be said that his statements haven't been debunked.
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Well, Ted Kennedy has said some pretty provactive things recently but because he hasn't backed up his statements with hard facts yet it could be said that his statements haven't been debunked.
The fact that kenedy spoke them is reason enough to debunk them.
-
Originally posted by Batz
http://www.losaltosonline.com/articles/2003/09/23/news/community/news01.txt
'Ole Wes is from Arkansas sho' nuff.......
You may end up being better off with Rev. Al
A response, not mine but I agree with it, from another supporter...
The Federation of American Scientists did a complete workup in 1999 on the Kosovo war, and their general opinion was:
SNIP
General Wesley Clark has been NATO's Supreme Allied Commander in Europe since July 1997. In that capacity, he was responsible for conducting the western alliance's successful 78-day air campaign against Serb forces in Kosovo - NATO's only offensive military endeavor in its 50-year history. Retired Colonel David Hackworth - a decorated U-S veteran from the Korean and Vietnam wars - says General Clark has not received the necessary accolades for his Kosovo campaign. /// HACKWORTH ACT /// He is a winner. He is the first General in U-S military history who fought a war, sustained - as we know - no friendly casualties and at the end of the war didn't get a bunch of medals, didn't get a victory parade down (New York's) Fifth Avenue and ended up getting the sack. (getting fired)
SNIP
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/ops/docs99/990804-kosovo01.htm
I strongly suggest reading the entire page and one can see the political manipulation and the disagreements (say: HONEST ASSESSMENT) that General Clark had with DEFENSE on the use of Ground Troops.
This, against comments of a Bush supporting General Shelton, who is one of the authors of the Iraq Quagmire?
PLEASE choose something real to bash on, and consider this item DEBUNKED.
-
I doubt that Clark will have the stomach for no-holds-barred politics. His political background was in an environment in which open mud slinging and blatant lying were rarely if ever tolerated. Guess time will tell.
-
Originally posted by Udie
The fact that kenedy spoke them is reason enough to debunk them.
Which brings us full circle, replace your misspelling of Kennedy with Limbaugh and we're back at ground zero on this matter.
-
Except that no one here claimed that anyone had debunked Kennedy. You were saying that Limbaugh had been debunked.
Oh well, not worth belaboring the point.
-
That photo has been effectively debunked... find something significant. (for details read the last thread containing this kaka).
-
You havent "debunked" a thing. Clark is an opportunist. Read what Toad's quote he flip flopped all over whetehr he would have voted for the resolution authorizing President Bush to use force in Iraq. Shelton may or may not be a Bush Supporter but he would know more then you.
Clark isnt a threat to Bush, he wont even get the nomination. The Clintons pushed him out there to get him out of the way in 2008.
Hes lied about the "came from the white house" crap and already has known "character and integrity" issues. He lied about Bush trying to get him fired from CNN. Feel free to hitch your wagon to that horse. Sounds like you know how to pick a winner.
Retired Colonel David Hackworth says Clark didnt get what he deserved over Kosovo :rolleyes:
Your own link says he wanted a more "vigorous military campaign" against the Serbs. They also say thats why Cohen fired him. Then you say he should be credited with the "less vigorus" air campaign.
Retired Colonel Dan Smith - a West Point classmate of
General Clark - says the NATO Commander believes the
only way you can achieve success militarily, is to
have troops on the ground.
/// CLARK ACT ///
He is of the school which in the United States
is generally attributed to General Colin Powell:
if you are going to fight, you go in with both
feet and you go in fast and you go in hard with
overwhelming force - and I think that was what
Wes was trying to push NATO into.
/// END ACT ///
During the 11-week air campaign, there were signs of
friction between General Clark and senior Pentagon
officials - especially over the use of ground forces.
That option was essentially rejected by the Clinton
administration, putting General Clark in direct
opposition to current US policy.
Paul Beaver - senior analyst with the British
publication "Jane's Defense Weekly" - says General
Clark disagreed with another senior NATO officer about
the use of ground troops in the Kosovo campaign.
/// BEAVER ACT ///
Certainly he wanted to be more robust in the
Kosovo landing operation. He wanted to go and
confront the Russians at Pristina airfield. And
that was actually a matter of some debate
between him and the ground force commander
(British General) Sir Mike Jackson in which Sir
Mike Jackson won, because in his words it would
have started World War Three and we weren't
quite ready for that.
/// END ACT ///
Sounds like it was Pentagon that should recieve the credit for Kosovo.
Sounds like you would make a fine dem candidate, are you from Arkansas?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Debunk this...
(http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.jpg)
Excellent point. It is one thing to meet with an evil man, but exchanging hats? That's just inexcusable!
-
Oh great, thats just what we need...a president with a potty mouth. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
But hey, Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt set the standard for the degradation of our highest office in the land so why the hell not!
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh great, thats just what we need...a president with a potty mouth. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
It's funny that you mention that. Tucker Carlson, the well known bow-tied liberal (haha no), recently gave an interview explaining how he was ostracized by the Bush-ites during the presidential campaign. 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.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Oh great, thats just what we need...a president with a potty mouth. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
But hey, Clinton, Kennedy, Roosevelt set the standard for the degradation of our highest office in the land so why the hell not!
I guess you aren't old enough to remember the Watergate tapes... Nixon invented the term.. "Expletive Deleted"
-
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? :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Of course we're expected to believe ONE MAN, right? :rolleyes:
No, at this point in time, I wouldn't believe anything Bush says.
-
lol Erlkonig :D
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.
-
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?
-
You mean the US was Allied to a man gassing women and children with chemical weapons? Say it ain't so!
-
But isn't the current left wing position that it was Iranian gas that killed those people?
-
The CIA says Iranian gas was involved, but what do they know? Bunch of communist degenerates.
-
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.
-
... 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?
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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!
-
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