Input: Wesley Clark Questions

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

He was not indicted at the time, but he was a known war criminal, he was being investigated by everyone(US, NATO, etc), Clark knew this and did not follow the state departments memo to him. He went on and meet with someone on the other side.

And Saddam was a known fairy at the time Rumsfeld met with him?

Was Rumsfield an active duty Lt General in the United States army when he meet with Saddam? No. No I believe he was an offical for the US, sent their by the US, correct me if Im wrong. At the time of the meeting Saddam had only been in power for a few years.

You are fvcking moron if you dont see how improper Gen Clarks actions were. He was a Lt General, serving in a conflict when he meet with someone he knew to be a war criminal, he was told not to, he did so anyways for no real reason.

Its laughable that he got his 4th star, the only reason he did was he was a political liability and it was to get him to leave them alone. That was until his idiotic stunt as NATOs Supreme Commander of Europe, after which he was forced out and eventually retired because the military did not want him. He was an inept leader, as a Lt General, he was an inept General, he was inept politically, and he is the democrats saving grace.

Heres the deal, hes being backed by the Clintons(who for the last 6 years have not liked him, and vis versa) because they know hes not going to win after all the negative press that will eventually come out. The is a coup for Hillary, she is bying time for 2008, and Gen Clark is the perfect fodder to go up against Bush. Where as Dean, Kerry or Gore would be alot closer races.

It's the GOP obsession with Hillary that is driving this nonsensical talk.
It's typical for GOP to try to bring down the opposition when their candidate doesn't measure up. Tripple war amputee Max Cleland not patriotic enough for the GOP, but AWOL president Bush is. It's truly despicable how low the GOP will go.
Bush had his chance, he did not serve, Clark did.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: Tripleshot

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

He was not indicted at the time, but he was a known war criminal, he was being investigated by everyone(US, NATO, etc), Clark knew this and did not follow the state departments memo to him. He went on and meet with someone on the other side.

And Saddam was a known fairy at the time Rumsfeld met with him?

Was Rumsfield an active duty Lt General in the United States army when he meet with Saddam? No. No I believe he was an offical for the US, sent their by the US, correct me if Im wrong. At the time of the meeting Saddam had only been in power for a few years.

You are fvcking moron if you dont see how improper Gen Clarks actions were. He was a Lt General, serving in a conflict when he meet with someone he knew to be a war criminal, he was told not to, he did so anyways for no real reason.

Its laughable that he got his 4th star, the only reason he did was he was a political liability and it was to get him to leave them alone. That was until his idiotic stunt as NATOs Supreme Commander of Europe, after which he was forced out and eventually retired because the military did not want him. He was an inept leader, as a Lt General, he was an inept General, he was inept politically, and he is the democrats saving grace.

Heres the deal, hes being backed by the Clintons(who for the last 6 years have not liked him, and vis versa) because they know hes not going to win after all the negative press that will eventually come out. The is a coup for Hillary, she is bying time for 2008, and Gen Clark is the perfect fodder to go up against Bush. Where as Dean, Kerry or Gore would be alot closer races.

I hope he wins just to piss you off. He is 1000 times better than you are, and if you check the polls today, he is ahead of shrub by several points, and he just got into the race. There is not a damn thing shrub has done in his control of the whitehouse that could be viewed as a positive step for the nation. NOTHING!!!

Tax cuts for the rich, abandoning kyoto treaty, removing enviromental sanctions to protect clean air and water, no Osama, and no Saddam.. Yep, this rooty tooty cowboy you degenerative republicans elected is the biggest farce in history, and your grandchildrens' grandchildren will still be paying for this A-holes decisions long after you and I are dead and buried.

Keep up your dissying of Clark. You make a good target.

Man you sure are an easier target.

1. Tax cuts for the rich? Are you a fvcking moron or do you have a low IQ? Do you not comprehend logic or math? Everyone got a tax cut, the more you paid the more you go back. Its simple mathmatics and logic really. A 7 year old can comprehend that.

2. Abandoning Kyoto Treaty? I never knew congress passed a bill allowing the US to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Last I checked Kyoto was about to get shot down 90-10 before Bush just squashed the whole issue. Kyoto is a none issue, no matter what president we had the US would never have been a part of a heavily lopsided treaty.

What polls are these? Several polls have been skewed recently and investigations about them have been public. Polls are a useless measure. Once people know who the real Gen Clark is hes going to fall flat on his face. Just because he was a career military man doesnt mean anything. More so when his last decade of duty is under heavy scrutiny, which is more than warranted, considering its basically his whole platform. "Look at me Im a 4 star General". He has very little substance behind him, less than Bush.

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

He was not indicted at the time, but he was a known war criminal, he was being investigated by everyone(US, NATO, etc), Clark knew this and did not follow the state departments memo to him. He went on and meet with someone on the other side.

And Saddam was a known fairy at the time Rumsfeld met with him?

Was Rumsfield an active duty Lt General in the United States army when he meet with Saddam? No. No I believe he was an offical for the US, sent their by the US, correct me if Im wrong. At the time of the meeting Saddam had only been in power for a few years.

You are fvcking moron if you dont see how improper Gen Clarks actions were. He was a Lt General, serving in a conflict when he meet with someone he knew to be a war criminal, he was told not to, he did so anyways for no real reason.

Its laughable that he got his 4th star, the only reason he did was he was a political liability and it was to get him to leave them alone. That was until his idiotic stunt as NATOs Supreme Commander of Europe, after which he was forced out and eventually retired because the military did not want him. He was an inept leader, as a Lt General, he was an inept General, he was inept politically, and he is the democrats saving grace.

Heres the deal, hes being backed by the Clintons(who for the last 6 years have not liked him, and vis versa) because they know hes not going to win after all the negative press that will eventually come out. The is a coup for Hillary, she is bying time for 2008, and Gen Clark is the perfect fodder to go up against Bush. Where as Dean, Kerry or Gore would be alot closer races.

It's the GOP obsession with Hillary that is driving this nonsensical talk.
It's typical for GOP to try to bring down the opposition when their candidate doesn't measure up. Tripple war amputee Max Cleland not patriotic enough for the GOP, but AWOL president Bush is. It's truly despicable how low the GOP will go.
Bush had his chance, he did not serve, Clark did.

And that makes one qualified how?

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: digitalsm

Originally posted by: SuperTool
I have one.

General Clark, instead of serving in Serbia/Kosovo why didn't you go AWOL on a rum and 'coke' binge, like a true Patriot Commander-in-Chief?

Meeting with an enemy, who is a war criminal, to boose it up and trade gifts is not excusible behavior for a Lt General serving in the region.

DITTO

Last I checked, back in those days Saddam was not an enemy of the United States. Gen Clark, while on ACTIVE DUTY in Bosnia, meet with a war criminal. Comparing that to Rumsfield meeting Saddam in the early 80s is idiotic. Times change. Policies change, and Rumsfeild wasnt told not to meet Saddam, I believe in fact he was sent to see Saddam by the US, which is totally different from Gen Clark's dealings with a war criminal.

The US created the problems in Iraq, it dates back from JFK, to Johnson and Nixon. Carter, and Regean didnt help matters either.

Was Mladic an indicted war criminal at the time this exchange happened? You are being a typical republican hypocrite.

He was not indicted at the time, but he was a known war criminal, he was being investigated by everyone(US, NATO, etc), Clark knew this and did not follow the state departments memo to him. He went on and meet with someone on the other side.

And Saddam was a known fairy at the time Rumsfeld met with him?

Was Rumsfield an active duty Lt General in the United States army when he meet with Saddam? No. No I believe he was an offical for the US, sent their by the US, correct me if Im wrong. At the time of the meeting Saddam had only been in power for a few years.

You are fvcking moron if you dont see how improper Gen Clarks actions were. He was a Lt General, serving in a conflict when he meet with someone he knew to be a war criminal, he was told not to, he did so anyways for no real reason.

Its laughable that he got his 4th star, the only reason he did was he was a political liability and it was to get him to leave them alone. That was until his idiotic stunt as NATOs Supreme Commander of Europe, after which he was forced out and eventually retired because the military did not want him. He was an inept leader, as a Lt General, he was an inept General, he was inept politically, and he is the democrats saving grace.

Heres the deal, hes being backed by the Clintons(who for the last 6 years have not liked him, and vis versa) because they know hes not going to win after all the negative press that will eventually come out. The is a coup for Hillary, she is bying time for 2008, and Gen Clark is the perfect fodder to go up against Bush. Where as Dean, Kerry or Gore would be alot closer races.

It's the GOP obsession with Hillary that is driving this nonsensical talk.
It's typical for GOP to try to bring down the opposition when their candidate doesn't measure up. Tripple war amputee Max Cleland not patriotic enough for the GOP, but AWOL president Bush is. It's truly despicable how low the GOP will go.
Bush had his chance, he did not serve, Clark did.

And that makes one qualified how?

I never said Bush was qualified
500B deficit, exploding govt spending, an open ended conflict in Iraq, squandering the international unity after Sep 11 speak loud and clear to his qualifications.