Wesley Clark contradicts himself... again

[NewYorkDragons80]

Here are some gems from the latest unearthing of Wesley Clark's Republicanism.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."


"I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."


"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense,"

He burned a lot of bridges by leaving the Republican party the way he did. He would have made an excellent third-party candidate.
Drudge Report (http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm)
<marquee>
"To insist on strength is not war-mongering. It is peace-mongering." -Senator Barry M. Goldwater "If gold should rust, what will iron do?" -Geoffrey Chaucer "Worship him, I beg you, in a way that is worthy of thinking beings.-Romans 12:1</marquee>
<img src=http://members.aol.com/cityhawk80/images/nydragonssig.bmp?mtbrand=AOL_US>

This message was edited by NewYorkDragons80 on 1-15-04 @ 1:45 PM

[TheMojoPin]

This man should NOT be president.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HarborHound]

I counldn't agree more. How can people still back him ?

**cough** librals.

yo man former CAPO

[TheMojoPin]

I AM a liberal.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[HarborHound]

on of the enlightened

yo man former CAPO

[MizzleTizzle]

Let me jump in here before the inevitable dissolve occurs.

Here's me straight up. I dislike the large political parties, maybe all; simple distrust, whatever. My problem.

So I don't care what side he was on; I really wanna like this guy. In fact; all the candidates get a pass on me while I'm still studying who the hell they are.

Well I found out this about Clark that I like. Tough to deny his Military accomplishments. West Point, 1st in class, Rhodes Scholar; so not dragging his ethics or morals into it; the man has a Brain Pan.

He was also involved in the Dayton Peace Accords, and irrespective of agreeing or disagreeing on what became of it; the aim was to stop the genocide in Bosnia. Ditto with Kosovo 1999.

He calls the No Child Left Behind Act a 'Failure'. It is; I worked on it.

----------------------

So this was the guy I was hoping for on the Ticket against Bush, out of the pack of 8, since Carole Mosley Braun threw in the towel today; and that's irrespective of whether I want Bush in again or not, because simple, right now, I dont know.

[Edit: Do I still want him on the ticket? Beats me; I'm still trying to figure out what these people actually stand For; it's getting very weird. One day Clark looks good? the next? and who know about tomorrow? and when they find the pictures of me and Dr. Dean's wife; lemme tell ya here's one guy who knows why she keeps a low profile wooHOOO ok now i'm dissolving...]

[praying] :Can this not dissolve?:

This message was edited by MizzleTizzle on 1-15-04 @ 2:02 PM

[Tall_James]

This man should NOT be president.

No matter how good he looks in a sweater.

Oh, and if he has Madonna's endorsement - that's a good enough reason to shun him.


<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=tall_james">

[HarborHound]

I read his memoirs and he is very intelligent he is just crazier than and seeminly more twofaced than the rest.

he does look good in cashmere

yo man former CAPO

[MizzleTizzle]

Oh, and if he has Madonna's endorsement - that's a good enough reason to shun him.


TJ i swear to God when I read that I literally could not Believe it. I thought she was joking about herself. I actually started a line-by-line response I was gonna send in to the papers; but said screw it; not worth it.

I give her all the hubris in the Musical world, thats what made her. But sorry Louise, I'm not buying your born-again parent vis-a-vis lack of options due to bad career changes bullshit.

[I'm sorry but that last one was good. Get me Dennis Miller on the phone.]

[TheGameHHH]

I'm with Mizzle on this one, apparently him and I share the same exact political views

<IMG SRC="http://home.comcast.net/~rmfallon/RFnetHHH.jpg">

[SatCam]

It wont be long before there's a clarkorchimp.com.

<img src=http://satelitecam.com.co.nr/sig78_general_katylina.jpg align=right><A HREF=http://www.satelitecam.tk>Ron and Fez Drops and Bits</A> | <a href=http://www.oldronandfezpages.tk>WNEW Ron and Fez Pages</a> | <a href=http://www.robanddan.tk/>RobandDan.tk</a> | Sig by the wonderful Katylina | [color=White]Don't Steel him from me!

[TheMojoPin]

I read his memoirs and he is very intelligent he is just crazier than and seeminly more twofaced than the rest.

Well, I don't see how he's possibly crazy or twofaced. I just don't see or hear anything that indicates he's any more qualified for the job than Bush, and I don't want the same deal twice. I'm sure the guy is very smart and a fantastic general...I've just been presented with very little that indicates he could run the country.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[curtoid]

There's a lot about him that I like (smart, very pro choice, eco-friendly, hasn't spent the campaign bashing the other democratic nominees, vocal agains the war from the start yet can't be painted in as some sort of reactionary peace-nic, not to mention the only one of the major candidates to support gay marriage, and not just civil unions), but there is a lot we still don't know that I would like to find out.

Karl Rove's Nightmare - Editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A18406-2004Jan14.html)

For me he's making this part of the election cycle a little fun; I don't yet loath him the way I do Kerry, Gephardt or Leiberman.

[KOP]

Today's terror alert brought to you by...
http://www.geekandproud.net/terror/terror.php

"Resist despair"

[Justice4all]

Well Clark has admitted it HIMSELF he is not a good politician, he is a good LEADER. That is why you find him making errors in speaches. He usually speaks his mind. (And as stated before he is a VERY smart man) What happens is the poliitcal aides come at him and say "You can't say this or that..you have to say this or that" . He is new to this. I like the fact he is a leader. We do not need politicians anymore. We need a good LEADER who will sit back and listen to his staff and then make the right decision.
And his military record is very impressive. He was shot twice in Vietnam and that is why he has a limp. Name the last president who spent time in the military and not the National Guard.
I think Bush Sr. was the last one.
So far Clark is the man who I would choose between all the Democrats. I like that he is stumbling because politics is not his game. I think it is a breath of fresh air.

And Bush still has to prove himself not a liar with Iraq. Now do not get me wrong...I think Saddam was evil and YES it is a good thing that he will be put to trial. But I have said it before and I will say it again...We did the RIGHT thing for the WRONG reasons.

But as far as Clark. I will vote Democrat if he is their candidate.

<img src=http://home.ix.netcom.com/~camman/_uimages/Justice4All.gif>
Bowie, Md.: Berkeley, I'm so glad you're back!; I've really missed The Far Side all these years.

Berkeley Breathed: Yes, thank you, but I don't draw Far Side. I draw Calvin and Hobbes.

[Doomstone]

How about, instead of copying/pasting a few select quotes from Matt Drudge, you link to the ENTIRE THING?

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has269000.000/has269000_0.htm



I'd like to offer the following observations by way of how we could proceed. First of all, I do believe that the United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations can not act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration.

Such congressional resolution need not, at this point, authorize the use of force. The more focused the resolution on Iraq, the more focused it is on the problems of weapons of mass destruction. The greater its utility in the United Nations, the more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its utility is, the greater its impact is on the diplomatic efforts under way.

The president and his national security team have got to deploy imagination, leverage, and patience in working through the United Nations. In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible. This may require a period of time for inspections or the development of a more intrusive inspection regime such as Richard Perle has mentioned, if necessary backed by force. It may involve cracking down on the eroding sanctions regime and countries like Syria who are helping Iraq illegally export oil enabling Saddam Hussein to divert resources to his own purposes.

We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership. This is what U.S. leadership in the world must be. We must bring others to share our views not be too quick to rush to try to impose them even if we have the power to do so. I agree that there's a risk that the inspections would fail to provide evidence of the weapons program. They might fail, but I think we can deal with this problem as we move along, and I think the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by the opportunities to gain allies, support, and legitimacy in the campaign against Saddam Hussein.

We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq are prepared and ready. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance and preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.

Ideally, the international/multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post conflict operations, the United Nations, NATO, other regional organization, Islamic organizations, but we have no idea how long this campaign could last, and if it were to go like the campaign against the Afghans, against the Taliban in which suddenly the Taliban collapsed and there we were.

We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region.

So, all that having been said, the option to use force must remain on the table. It should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted unless there's information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations.


My god, what a warmonger! What with his talk of UN inspections, use of force only as a last resort, and international planning for reconstruction of Iraq, you'd think he's chomping at the bit!

Let's hear more about these "inspections" from an obvious warmonger!


[quote]
Well, I think you have to have an echelon series of inspections. I think you start small and I think you expand the intrusiveness, the scope and the scale of the inspections, and

[high fly]

Mizzle, your first post is superb.
I would add that Clark also fought and won a war without losing a single American.
I would also add that the man is a genuine war hero.
And yeah to those who wish to belittle that, it DOES mean something.

I would also add that we can be confident in Clark to use proper strategy and tactics in this war on terror and not make the obvious mistakes that Bush has made.
Clark is a Viet Nam vet.
In that war, it was a huge mistake to not pursue the enemy across the border into Laos, Cambodia and North Viet Nam.
When you get them on the run, you never let them get away, you maintain contact until you catch up to them and destroy them.
By allowing them sancuaries, they were able to regroup, reorganize, rest, plan, and get back in the fight at a time and in a place of their choosing.
Another mistake was the bombing halts and stopping the fighting on holidays. You never relent on the pressure until they are destroyed. When they are backing up, they can't hit you very hard.

Bush has made these 2 mistakes and the American people will pay for it.

As for these stories portraying Clark as a nut, I just don't believe them.
I look on a long record of achievement and steady, skilled leadership, and I don't see a nut.
I just don't.

" and they ask me why I drink"

[Doomstone]

Columbia Journalism Review on Matt Drudge's shameless distortion (http://www.campaigndesk.org/)



Thursday afternoon, the Drudge Report chimed in with a grossly incorrect headline, "Wes Clark Made Case For Iraq War Before Congress; Transcript Revealed" atop an article designed to distort the General's position.

In excerpting Clark's testimony before the House Armed Services Committee on September 26, 2002, Drudge entirely misrepresents the candidate's remarks.

Drudge quotes Clark's testimony: "'There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we.'" [ellipses Drudge's]

Drudge is using the ellipse as a weapon, with malice aforethought.
Clark's statement that "Saddam Hussein is a threat" came from his opening remarks to the committee. An ellipse then carries the reader more than 11,500 words later into the transcript to a second quotation. Finally, Drudge uses the next ellipse to jump way back to the beginning of Clark's testimony. The effect is to make Clark's testimony sound more frantic than it really is and to incorrectly suggest that Clark had endorsed the war.

The deceptive reporting continues with two final excerpts. The first is drawn from a section in which Clark states that the use of force must remain on the table as a threat, but that all diplomatic measures must be taken before military action proceeds. Drudge's selective excerpt ends with Clark suggesting that the situation with Iraq has "been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Drudge would like you to think that Clark's thoughts on the subject end there. In fact, only moments later, Clark clearly stated, "but time is on our side in the near term and we should use it."

Then Drudge leads into the final excerpt with the words, "Clark explained," implying that Clark's statements in the final excerpt modified his statements in the previous excerpt. Once again, however, Drudge is cavalierly skipping through Clark's testimony: There are 3,798 words in-between these two statements -- enough to fill four pages of Time magazine.




-------------------------------

<u><b>The Doomstone Fan Club</u>

Se7en
Def Dave In DC
NewYorkDragons80</b>

Now accepting memberships, apply today!

[high fly]

Good one, Doomstone!

That damned Drudge, his ellipsis is bigger than mine!
Hey! No fair!

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina for the sig!

[TheMojoPin]

Does ANYONE take Drudge for real?

I still don't think Clark is the best choice for president, perhaps even not over Bush.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Teenweek]

Isn't Clark a republican like bloomberg is really a democrat?

[A.J.]

I'm sure the guy is very smart and a fantastic general...I've just been presented with very little that indicates he could run the country.


He's as qualified as Eisenhower was.

I would add that Clark also fought and won a war without losing a single American.

That was an air war.

<IMG SRC="http://www.silentspic.com/images/sighost/ajdcsig.jpg">
A Skidmark production.

Red Sox Nation

[TheMojoPin]

He's as qualified as Eisenhower was.

Well, I'm sure Grant was, too.

Yikes.

<img src="http://scripts.cgispy.com/image.cgi?u=TheMojoPin">
2% << December boys got it BAD >> "You might tell some lies about the good times we've had/But I've kissed your mother twice...and now I'm working on your dad..."

[high fly]

That was an air war.


Yeah, and we kicked that air's ass, now didn't we?
Hadn't had any trouble from it since, now have we?

Seriously, winning a war and losing no one, that's cool!

" and they ask me why I drink"
http://64.177.177.182/katylina/highflysig.jpg
Big ups to sex bomb baby Katylina for the sig!