Clark - "US plans to attack seven Muslim states"

[DealMonkey]

If we can just get Clark to wear a straw hat and hold a pitchfork while juxtaposing him against a backdrop of F-150s loaded down with hay bales, he might just have a chance at winning over that vast agrarian cow belt wasteland (thanks MB!). Plan "A" -- Convert the red states.

 

[Pennstate]

I qoute Retired General H. Hugh Shelton former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,



Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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."



Let's see. Hugh Shelton was the JCS during Kosovo. And it was him who tricked Clinton into removing Clark, using an excuse that if Joe Ralston (vice chair of JCS at the time) doesn't get the NATO job, he'd be forced to retire. This was not true and CLinton later apologized to Clark saying he was fooled.


Now, WHY WHOULD SHELTON SUPPORT CLARK? Shelton and Clark are enemies. And Shelton shouldn't be th eone here talking about integrity and character.

 

[LunarRay]

WinstonSmith said:
Then let's see specifics. If Clark does not deserve the office "bring it on". I can then add him to the list of unworthies, as I have Bush. Until then, I have seen contradictory allegations. He is on the short list for the time being. Perhaps Clark has problems and maybe its Shelton. I am sure as time goes on, the press will dig things up.
********************

I see it like this here..

Bush needs being retired to Texas in '04. There are Republicans who, I think, would be a much better choice than Bush. But, they will not run against Bush and they'd lose if they did. That leaves Democrats to unseat Bush. I believe any of the top five Dem's would be better than Bush but, only Clark at this point in time can swing the southern states to the Democratic side which is what is needed. Clark/Kerrey(of Nebraska) is the strongest ticket, IMO. Notwithstanding any of the allegations against Clark or Kerrey, they are the only pair that can pull off the southern state swing.
It is all about Winning in '04 and I don't look to which democrat is a better choice but, rather which ticket can win the day given the dynamics. I'd accept a whole lot of chinks in Clark's armour if he's the one with the winning potential.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Bush needs being retired to Texas in '04. There are Republicans who, I think, would be a much better choice than Bush. But, they will not run against Bush and they'd lose if they did. That leaves Democrats to unseat Bush. I believe any of the top five Dem's would be better than Bush but, only Clark at this point in time can swing the southern states to the Democratic side which is what is needed. Clark/Kerrey(of Nebraska) is the strongest ticket, IMO. Notwithstanding any of the allegations against Clark or Kerrey, they are the only pair that can pull off the southern state swing.
It is all about Winning in '04 and I don't look to which democrat is a better choice but, rather which ticket can win the day given the dynamics. I'd accept a whole lot of chinks in Clark's armour if he's the one with the winning potential.

To be quite honest Ray, I think many of the "chinks in Clark's armour" are currently being 'manufactured' on purpose at an unprecedented rate. This whole politics business is just downright disgusting, IMO.

We rarely hear one or two paragraphs about the man until a few months ago. Now, after announcing his intentions, all kinds of outrageous and twisted information suddenly surfaces.

The allegations concerning General Clark's involvement at Waco in '93 are totally uncalled for. This whole slander campaign against the General just sickens me.

 

[Pennstate]

Now, burnedout, wouldn't you agree that the GOP spin machine is better at smearing than the DEMs? maybe we are less creative. Or maybe, that darn conscience is blocking our creativity.

 

[LunarRay]

Burnedout said:
To be quite honest Ray, I think many of the "chinks in Clark's armour" are currently being 'manufactured' on purpose at an unprecedented rate. This whole politics business is just downright disgusting, IMO.

We rarely hear one or two paragraphs about the man until a few months ago. Now, after announcing his intentions, all kinds of outrageous and twisted information suddenly surfaces.

The allegations concerning General Clark's involvement at Waco in '93 are totally uncalled for. This whole slander campaign against the General just sickens me
*****************

It is sickening to me as well. They are after the opposition, big time. They fear Clark. I think they realize he is going to be their Nov. '04 rival and they need to cut him down in hopes that someone else will get the democratic nod.
I'd love to see every democratic hopeful say ' I can't run against Clark... he ought to be president' and drop out.
They even made fun of Perot's mate in '92 and he a MOH winner. Stockdale was not political.. neither was Perot but he garnered quite a few votes in some of the states I didn't think he'd do nearly as well in.

The race in '04 is in Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas and maybe New Mexico and Nebraska. The rest of the states will follow the Blue/Red norms I think.. Swing two and Bush adieu..

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Bush needs being retired to Texas in '04. There are Republicans who, I think, would be a much better choice than Bush. But, they will not run against Bush and they'd lose if they did. That leaves Democrats to unseat Bush. I believe any of the top five Dem's would be better than Bush but, only Clark at this point in time can swing the southern states to the Democratic side which is what is needed. Clark/Kerrey(of Nebraska) is the strongest ticket, IMO. Notwithstanding any of the allegations against Clark or Kerrey, they are the only pair that can pull off the southern state swing.
It is all about Winning in '04 and I don't look to which democrat is a better choice but, rather which ticket can win the day given the dynamics. I'd accept a whole lot of chinks in Clark's armour if he's the one with the winning potential.

To be quite honest Ray, I think many of the "chinks in Clark's armour" are currently being 'manufactured' on purpose at an unprecedented rate. This whole politics business is just downright disgusting, IMO.

We rarely hear one or two paragraphs about the man until a few months ago. Now, after announcing his intentions, all kinds of outrageous and twisted information suddenly surfaces.

The allegations concerning General Clark's involvement at Waco in '93 are totally uncalled for. This whole slander campaign against the General just sickens me.

Well he is ultimately the most dangerous man in Karl Rove's mind, they will character assassinate him anyway they can.

I'll just say, I wouldn't be surprise at the extent of things Karl Rove will pull to get Bush re-elected. :evil:

 

[Pennstate]

ANother sickening strategy is trying to equate Clark to Clinton. You hear "Clark is a stalking horse for CLinton" Bill and Wesley were Pals. etc. Nothing unite the right than hatred for CLinton. They are trying to play the Clinton card on Clark. HELLO, Clinton isn't the president anymore.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
Now, burnedout, wouldn't you agree that the GOP spin machine is better at smearing than the DEMs? maybe we are less creative. Or maybe, that darn conscience is blocking our creativity.

Buahahaha

Sorry it just struck me as totally 'hillary'ious.

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
ANother sickening strategy is trying to equate Clark to Clinton. You hear "Clark is a stalking horse for CLinton" Bill and Wesley were Pals. etc. Nothing unite the right than hatred for CLinton. They are trying to play the Clinton card on Clark. HELLO, Clinton isn't the president anymore.

Clintoon is the biggest player in the Dem political scene. He is supposedly pushing Clark, so the connection is growing everyday. You just wait until you see Clintoon on the talk shows talking up Clark...mark my words

CkG

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
Now, burnedout, wouldn't you agree that the GOP spin machine is better at smearing than the DEMs? maybe we are less creative. Or maybe, that darn conscience is blocking our creativity.

Truthfully, I think both sides have their own inherent misgivings regarding propaganda.

In General Clark's case, however, I'm seeing propaganda that I didn't think was remotely possible. For example, I'd thought the primary "misinformation", so to speak, might be limited to his involvement during the Balkans campaign or perhaps some loose baggage left over from Vietnam. Then this Waco thing surfaces. Talk about a shocker!

I wouldn't normally be so concerned about such garbage. The problem is though, that there are actually people out there who will believe that garbage, and vote with said belief in mind at the poll.

I know with deep conviction that those allegations concerning Waco are simply untrue. I haven't really studied the other allegations regarding the Balkans campaign to pass judgement. But, based on my experience, I think some people are really distorting much of General Clark's involvement during that campaign.

 

[LilBlinbBlahIce]

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
"Instead, Clark points the finger at what he calls ?the real sources of terrorists - US allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia?.

Clark blames Egypt?s ?repressive policies?, Pakistan?s ?corruption and poverty, as well as Saudi Arabia?s ?radical ideology and direct funding? for creating a pool of angry young men who became ?terrorists?."

DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OUR SO CALLED ALLIES ARE F#CKING US IN THE REAR.

I have said this over and over again in these forums only to be beaten mercelessly with American flags by the Bushies.

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

They even made fun of Perot's mate in '92 and he a MOH winner. Stockdale was not political.. neither was Perot but he garnered quite a few votes in some of the states I didn't think he'd do nearly as well in.

Yeah, that was really awful how Admiral Stockdale was viewed and treated back then. MOH awardee, POW for 7 years, scholar, academic and stoic philosopher. They drug him through the mud. Totally uncalled for.

 

[Pennstate]

It's time to strap Karl Rove onto a parachute and drop him over the Iraqi dessert

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: LunarRay

They even made fun of Perot's mate in '92 and he a MOH winner. Stockdale was not political.. neither was Perot but he garnered quite a few votes in some of the states I didn't think he'd do nearly as well in.

Yeah, that was really awful how Admiral Stockdale was viewed and treated back then. MOH awardee, POW for 7 years, scholar, academic and stoic philosopher. They drug him through the mud. Totally uncalled for.

And now This fine General... folks forget, I guess, that the president nominates those stars and the Senators bless them and NATO Command is also Senate Blessed... He must have been reasonably OK then one should presume. The only extra baggage Clark took from Vietnam is three wounds and the associated metal... I don't know if they've mentioned that yet.. but, I think he has three purple hearts among other upper row decorations. But, it is his brain that will be tested here and I opine his is a sturdy and sharp as they come.
CADafryer say's Clinton backs Clark... That is correct. But, Clark is not Clinton and he should not respond to those kinds of pointed questions.
The Right is unleashing another barrage of Blonds.. now along side Ann Coulter is Laura Ingraham.. the dynamic duo, as it were. Pit Vipers spewing off their party line. But, like in the blond joke... they speak to the dummy on the ventriloquist's knee.

 

[Pennstate]

I predict that future smearing campaign will say that "Clark unnecessarily put his soldiers in harm's way in VIetnam" or Even "getting a purple heart from self-inflicting wounds" or something. I mean hell, the first thing they said about Clark was that he was a "bad general" quoting Hackworth. Now that Hackworth changes his opinion and apologized, they are trying to quote Hugh Shelton, the GUY that forced Clark out in an insidious and humuliating way.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: LilBlinbBlahIce

Originally posted by: tnitsuj
"Instead, Clark points the finger at what he calls ?the real sources of terrorists - US allies in the region like Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia?.

Clark blames Egypt?s ?repressive policies?, Pakistan?s ?corruption and poverty, as well as Saudi Arabia?s ?radical ideology and direct funding? for creating a pool of angry young men who became ?terrorists?."

DING DING DING!!!!!!!!!!!!!WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! OUR SO CALLED ALLIES ARE F#CKING US IN THE REAR.

I have said this over and over again in these forums only to be beaten mercelessly with American flags by the Bushies.

<ahem> - I'm a "bushie" - atleast I've been told I am I don't believe that I have done such as you say. Insane3D would say that lumping people into a group and dismissing what they have to say before they say it isn't proper.
So please don't say I did something that I clearly have not done

CkG

PS - post made in fun as some people need to lighten up on certain subjects.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
You're either with us, or you're a Bushie! Oh wait, no. Never mind, that was stupid.

I've heard that before somewhere..

Clark is electable. He could command all the big coastal states including Florida and probably pick up Arkansas and Tennessee along with a small central northern state.. if Kerrey of Nebraska ran with him, he'd pick up that state too. I also think New Mexico would lean his way. No other democratic hopeful could manage this. I don't think.. In any event, he also has the Clinton machine with him in all the key slots and Bush's strong hold, the military would move away from Bush towards Clark but, they already are in the large state calc's.
To win the democratic nod, Clark just needs to act presidential and charismatic. If he gets hit with US Economic issues he needs to stick to vision and not specifics. In Foreign affairs... focus on how to undo the ill advised philosophy of the current administration.. while being strong... Americans like strong.. especially, the Central State folks.. Flags and Strength will carry the day.
At no time mention Hillary. She would upset the close states that he needs.. She has democratic support but, he'd get that anyway.. the game would be won by attracting the Bush states to his column..

First rule in politics is to never count your chickens ... but I agree with a lot of this assessment except New Mexico because that is a very winnable soutwest state regardless, for any Democrat as it is trending more Democratic with more hispanics and a sorta popular hispanic, Democratic Governor though Gore only won the state (his only southwest state) by like 3000 votes. Nevada is also winnable simply because of the Yucca Valley radiation dump issue. I don't think that any national Democrat can win a northern central state.

Clark can be very competitive in the South. The Democrats need to be at least competitive in the South to win this election, IMO. They need one large southern state like Florida or a combination of smaller states like Arkansas, Tennessee. I would be very curious to hear his views on gun control as that is delicate issue in many swing states i.e Michigan, Pennsylvania, Missouri, etc.

A combination of much of the Rust Belt, California, New York, New England and one large southern state would win the presidency.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Bush needs being retired to Texas in '04. There are Republicans who, I think, would be a much better choice than Bush. But, they will not run against Bush and they'd lose if they did. That leaves Democrats to unseat Bush. I believe any of the top five Dem's would be better than Bush but, only Clark at this point in time can swing the southern states to the Democratic side which is what is needed. Clark/Kerrey(of Nebraska) is the strongest ticket, IMO. Notwithstanding any of the allegations against Clark or Kerrey, they are the only pair that can pull off the southern state swing.
It is all about Winning in '04 and I don't look to which democrat is a better choice but, rather which ticket can win the day given the dynamics. I'd accept a whole lot of chinks in Clark's armour if he's the one with the winning potential.

To be quite honest Ray, I think many of the "chinks in Clark's armour" are currently being 'manufactured' on purpose at an unprecedented rate. This whole politics business is just downright disgusting, IMO.

We rarely hear one or two paragraphs about the man until a few months ago. Now, after announcing his intentions, all kinds of outrageous and twisted information suddenly surfaces.

The allegations concerning General Clark's involvement at Waco in '93 are totally uncalled for. This whole slander campaign against the General just sickens me.

Well he is ultimately the most dangerous man in Karl Rove's mind, they will character assassinate him anyway they can.

I'll just say, I wouldn't be surprise at the extent of things Karl Rove will pull to get Bush re-elected. :evil:

Just look at what Bush (i.e., Rove) did to McCain in the primaries. Win at all cost, they have zero integrity.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: Pennstate
It's time to strap Karl Rove onto a parachute and drop him over the Iraqi dessert

Sounds like a waste of a good parachute.

Edit: And haven't the Iraqis suffered enough?

 

[Pennstate]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Pennstate
It's time to strap Karl Rove onto a parachute and drop him over the Iraqi dessert

Sounds like a waste of a good parachute.

Edit: And haven't the Iraqis suffered enough?

The last that I heard, they needed a new Information Minister

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Pennstate

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: Pennstate
It's time to strap Karl Rove onto a parachute and drop him over the Iraqi dessert

Sounds like a waste of a good parachute.

Edit: And haven't the Iraqis suffered enough?

The last that I heard, they needed a new Information Minister

hehe - i got a chuckle out of that

CkG

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: CaptnKirk
Clark/Kerry would probably be a more viable ticket than a Clark/Dean Cage Match,
even though Dean has a higher Poll Number than Kerry.

The Double-Up on Military Service Records would serve them well as strong on policy,
and the two alone would provide twide as much Service Record as the entire Bush Administration.
Yes, Rumsfeld <EM>was</EM> in the service - an <EM>Instructor</EM> for the Navy, but George W. Felony Bush went
AWOL during his 'National Guard' stint, and somehow had charges kept from being pressed against him.
I guess having his father as CIA director, and his affiliation with the Nixon & Reagan Administrations
may have had some influence on keeping his records clean so as not to reflect on Daddy B.

Woops - guess that pairing seems a bit more doubtful already rivals questioned his commitment to the Democratic Party

<snip>
Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said during a brief news conference here that Clark will have to answer for his past support of Republicans Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan.

"It's for Democrats to judge how they feel about people's lives and history," Kerry said. "But while he was voting for Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, I was fighting against both of their policies."
</snip>

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

By LunarRay:

Bush needs being retired to Texas in '04. There are Republicans who, I think, would be a much better choice than Bush. But, they will not run against Bush and they'd lose if they did. That leaves Democrats to unseat Bush. I believe any of the top five Dem's would be better than Bush but, only Clark at this point in time can swing the southern states to the Democratic side which is what is needed. Clark/Kerrey(of Nebraska) is the strongest ticket, IMO. Notwithstanding any of the allegations against Clark or Kerrey, they are the only pair that can pull off the southern state swing.
It is all about Winning in '04 and I don't look to which democrat is a better choice but, rather which ticket can win the day given the dynamics. I'd accept a whole lot of chinks in Clark's armour if he's the one with the winning potential.

LR- My primary personal political objective is to remove Bush from office. So far, the candidates who have a serious chance to gain the Democratic nomination are better choices than Bush for the office. That is not to say I am enamored of every one of them. Now in an ideal world, I would prefer to not vote for the lesser of two evils, but to be able to feel good about my choice. I certainly did not last time. I think the nation's close election reflected the internal division I felt in choosing between Bush and Gore. In the end, I chose Bush. I did not love either, but those were the choices. I freely admit I was mistaken. Now I have the opportunity to correct that error and I will certainly try. I must try to avoid the trap that Bush supporters are in though, to have to justify that which ought not to be defended. That is why I want to know if there is any real, significant reason not to choose Clark, who as you say, has the best chance of winning in the current climate. I do not want to have to defend a cannibal, a thief, or even someone who backs the invasion of a country who poses no real significant danger to the US. I confess that I am cautiously optimistic concerning Clark. It would be nice to be able to pick someone who I feel good about rather than selecting from a Hobson's choice. He will have far to fall before he becomes a worse alternative to Bush in any case.

 

[LunarRay]

CAD,
I don't think You are a 'Bushie'. I think you are ROBOCAD, the guy who believes in something deeply and will not bend. That is commendable so long as you have full and accurate information on which to base that belief. I rather suspect that if Bush Violated your belief system you'd drop him and his like a hot tater. I just interpret the same thing as you interpret differently and thus we see different sides of the orange and the side I see has worm holes.. I assume the entire orange is the same. I think you see the orange without all those worm holes and thus your position.. I only wonder why you don't see what I see and you wonder if I'm looking at the same orange..