Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dammit, I just knew it Cad. Good of you to admit it though. Have a nice day.
Wow - I guess I don't have to ever defend a statement of mine against you again after that. Thanks for playing
ClG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Those are your words. The quote is accurate, just like your selective quoting of Clark.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dammit, I just knew it Cad. Good of you to admit it though. Have a nice day.
Wow - I guess I don't have to ever defend a statement of mine against you again after that. Thanks for playing
ClG
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Those are your words. The quote is accurate, just like your selective quoting of Clark.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
Dammit, I just knew it Cad. Good of you to admit it though. Have a nice day.
Wow - I guess I don't have to ever defend a statement of mine against you again after that. Thanks for playing
ClG
If you look at my quoting of Clark - there is plenty of context. There is ZERO context in Monkeyboy's quoting of me, and infact was purposely decieving and exactly the opposite of what I said. My quoting of Clark was very much in context.
Nice try though. Try to impune me or Drudge all you want - it doesn't change what Clark said.
CkG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
I'm not going to deconstruct your whole rant -- the only way to win is not to play -- but I will correct one glaring distortion. Clark addressed Congress NOT to encourage them to use force, but to encourage them to threaten force, to put force on the table to gain leverage in our dealings with Iraq. They are not the same thing at all.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
I just knew Bowfinger would show up in this thread trying to say I'm wrong and "spinning"
Ofcourse what Bowfinger tends to forget is that my position is backed up by the data and the words uttered by one Mr.Clark. Drudge "broke" this, I read it, THEN went looking for the actual transcript, THEN posted this thread and have provided ample evidence of his supporting the use of FORCE.
Yes, we can all read what he says(via the link), and how he tried to say things, but when you really look at the combination of what he said and his stated position now is - they differ. He did infact suggest Congress pass legislation to put the force card on the table and wave it around - he said he SUPPORTED BUSH doing so. Yes, he did make other qualifying statements and opined about many other things, but he was quite clear that a dominant forceful position was indeed the path that he thought should be taken. He said the UN must take a stand - they didn't. His statements show that he does infact think that Saddam was a threat - and one that shouldn't be taken lightly. He acknowledged that Diplomacy alone was not going to work(he was not optimistic) and that force was likely and should be used if necessary.
You can yap all you want and say he was against this war all day long but Clark clearly supported the actions Bush was taking and urged Congress to support him(Bush) in those efforts. I could easily quote the whole damn thing with bolding so Bowfinger doesn't think I'm purposely leaving things out but that ofcourse would take alot of space, time, and would rely on you to decipher the point being made. I presented the portions(IN CONTEXT) that make the case that Clark did infact urge Congress to use the "force" card. If you can't handle that - then fine - vote for who you wish - just don't blame me when he turns out to be something he tries to say he is not.
And no, Bow saying his "handle" on things were better than Bush's is utter tripe. You can sit here and point to things said in hind-sight, but YOU don't know what Bush considered or didn't, so to say Bush didn't consider Clark's statements, or have similar thoughts/plans before Clark said them is pure speculation and is unsupportable with fact. Try as you might to defend Clark - his position was NOT consistent as he now claims.
We can also sit here and claim that Clark didn't support "THIS" war, or he didn't support it because of the timetable, or try to spin some other excuse - but the FACT is - he supported FORCE. He supported Diplomatic force(congressionall legislation) to leverage the UN - and in lew of that - he supported FORCE. Sure he'll say he would have done something different or on a different schedule - that really doesn't matter - he supported passing legislation of force. If you say he said otherwise("Such congressional resolution need NOT, at this point, authorize the use of force.") - then he contradicted himself during his testimony(..."but it is certainly time to put that card on the table, to turn it face up and to wave it and the president is doing that" - "...So you don't put that option on the table unless you really mean it.").
But yes - make your own decision on the candidates - just make sure you inform yourself as to their actual positions - not some 30 second soundbite you hear every hour or so.
CkG
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Try to impugn DealMoneky all you want - it doesn't change what you said.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Those are your words. The quote is accurate, just like your selective quoting of Clark.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Wow - I guess I don't have to ever defend a statement of mine against you again after that. Thanks for playingOriginally posted by: DealMonkey
Dammit, I just knew it Cad. Good of you to admit it though. Have a nice day.
ClG
If you look at my quoting of Clark - there is plenty of context. There is ZERO context in Monkeyboy's quoting of me, and infact was purposely decieving and exactly the opposite of what I said. My quoting of Clark was very much in context.
Nice try though. Try to impune me or Drudge all you want - it doesn't change what Clark said.
CkG
So was he taking both positions in the same speech? How can someone cite what he said and say "See? He supported force." And someone else cite passages from the same speech and say "See? He didn't".
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Try to impugn DealMoneky all you want - it doesn't change what you said.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Those are your words. The quote is accurate, just like your selective quoting of Clark.Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Wow - I guess I don't have to ever defend a statement of mine against you again after that. Thanks for playingOriginally posted by: DealMonkey
Dammit, I just knew it Cad. Good of you to admit it though. Have a nice day.
ClG
If you look at my quoting of Clark - there is plenty of context. There is ZERO context in Monkeyboy's quoting of me, and infact was purposely decieving and exactly the opposite of what I said. My quoting of Clark was very much in context.
Nice try though. Try to impune me or Drudge all you want - it doesn't change what Clark said.
CkG
yup - more BS from the leader(you now have your crown back
) If you had half a clue OR would quite trying to play games - you'd acknowledge my points on Clark and acknowledge that what monkeyboy did was wrong.Whatever - it's your little game - play on if you wish.
CkG
Did you expect Clark to be completely opposed to the possibility of ever using force in Iraq? No one here believes that was his position, and he certainly never said it. What comes out from the transcript, loud and clear, is that Clark did not support the military action that Bush took.
I am sorry but you are wrong. If Clark was presented with the options that were in front of Bush early last year, he would not have chosen force. That is the bottom line.
I am sorry but you are wrong. If Clark was presented with the options that were in front of Bush early last year, he would not have chosen force. That is the bottom line.
"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United Nations, the president's clear determination to act if the United States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage for under girding ongoing diplomatic efforts."
IMO and likely Bush's
the UN didn't do as Clark suggested.But whatever - support Clark for his anti-this-war views I guess.
CkG
The bottom line is this - if you support Clark, you are an easily manipulated fool. He is NOT there as a regular candidate. Like someone mentioned earlier, he is there to weaken Dean. It's all part of Hillary 2008. The Clintons know that Bush is going easily defeat any of the Democrat stiffs. The Clintons have always been about Power. They do NOT want a Democrat to win this year because that will virtually guarantee that Hillary will never be able to run.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
All right! I've got the crown again. Come on everyone, let's go invade something!Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
yup - more BS from the leader(you now have your crown back
Nope. Pure tripe IMHO. You continue to misrepresent his clear intent.
Aren't you the one who recently said something about, "What's good for the goose ..."?
You must be having fun playing devil's advocate. Do you honestly believe that Clark would have chosen war?
The military is a complex tool in foreign policy. We don't always use it when we threaten to, sometimes we use it without warning, etc. Whenever a troublespot pops up, you can bet we are going to send a carrier to the coast. Does that mean we are going to invade? No. But it sends a message. It puts the card on the table, so to speak. America does it all the time. Ever hear the phrase 'speak softly and carry a big stick?'
The military is a complex tool in foreign policy. We don't always use it when we threaten to, sometimes we use it without warning, etc. Whenever a troublespot pops up, you can bet we are going to send a carrier to the coast. Does that mean we are going to invade? No. But it sends a message. It puts the card on the table, so to speak. America does it all the time. Ever hear the phrase 'speak softly and carry a big stick?'
Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
"Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem and in taking this to the United Nations, the president's clear determination to act if the United States can't -- excuse me, if the United Nations can't provides strong leverage for under girding ongoing diplomatic efforts."
IMO and likely Bush's
But whatever - support Clark for his anti-this-war views I guess.
CkG
Why don't you just stop while you're not ahead RoboCad?
Clinton must be kicking himself then, Clark is looking good in many of the polls. What a joke, you must be an easily manipulated fool. Did you get your daily fill of Limbaugh today?
Everything Clark said (originally) was true. I'm a Democrat and I'm definitely voting for Bush in November.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 9K
-
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 7K
-
Facebook
Twitter