Who knew Clark to be such a Dancing Fool !

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
next stop broadway for homo politicus.

his dizzying policy changes, waffling, and dancing about vis-a-vis iraq

as his presidential ambitions grew in his head, the side-stepping and jitterbug movements increased with predictable frequency. while it
took two generations to get two versions of president bush, we have two versions of wesley clark in the span of a few months.


He said one thing in Time magazine and something quite different in The Times of London. In his CNN analyst role, he said on several
occasions that Saddam Hussein "absolutely" possessed weapons of mass destruction but then said last week, no such weapons having
yet been found, that "there was no imminent threat" to justify a war against Iraq. While those two statements are not automatically
incompatible, they suggest confusion or worse.

i liked the older clark better, before the taint. the man's analysis on cnn was spot-on. he was supportive, knew the history of failed
inspection regimes and u.n. kowtowing, alluded to the deplorable and incorrigible nature of saddam, sons, et al, and and understood
the importance of decisive action in the face of such bureacratic waffling. now, the top rail has gone bottom, reversing an old antebellum
saying.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,265
126
I liked the old Bush, the one before this one. I wonder if he goes to bed wondering how he raised a son to be the deceiver of America, or at least one so stupid as to be led by the nose by his subordinates. Terrible to have a son who is a failure, but a failure in the highest position must grieve him even more.



Edit: Dancing Fool
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Hmm, so, like so many Americans he trusted the President only to find out later that he was being lied to. He didn't "waffle", he "realized".
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
72,329
6,040
126
I like the dancing Clark much better.

It's quite humerous to read your link syzygy. The author complains that Clark is inconsistant. He begins with this ridiculous hatchet attact of clarvioance:

"Though the 58-year-old Clark may have announced his pursuit of the American presidency only last week, it would surprise no one familiar with his rising-star history and his vaulting ambition if he were to confide to us now that the Oval Office has been on his mind for quite some time."

as a means to bolster the notion that Clark should have been aware that he can't politically just change of mind, and finishes with this notion which you seem to have ignored:

"There's no way of telling at this point whether Wesley Clark might have the stuff to be one of those infrequent wise men. We may never find out. Modern political campaigns are about television and stagecraft, with both having the power to cloud voters' minds.

Maybe the lesson to be gleaned from the scrutiny that Clark and his ever shifting Iraq statements are receiving now is also about television. The medium demands from its talking heads an instant opinion about everything, and that can make a fool of anyone."

It seems to have made one of you. More frightening than somebody who kills people to save them is somebody who does it with passion.

=============

Someone asked mulla Nasrudin 'How old are you?. 'I am thirty nine' answered the Mulla. Someone else piped up, 'But that's what you said two years ago." 'Yes' replied the Mulla, 'I always stand by what I say.'
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, so, like so many Americans he trusted the President only to find out later that he was being lied to. He didn't "waffle", he "realized".

Can't defend clark, so you bash bush... interesting...
 

Looney

Lifer
Jun 13, 2000
21,941
5
0
Originally posted by: syzygy
next stop broadway for homo politicus.

his dizzying policy changes, waffling, and dancing about vis-a-vis iraq

as his presidential ambitions grew in his head, the side-stepping and jitterbug movements increased with predictable frequency. while it
took two generations to get two versions of president bush, we have two versions of wesley clark in the span of a few months.


He said one thing in Time magazine and something quite different in The Times of London. In his CNN analyst role, he said on several
occasions that Saddam Hussein "absolutely" possessed weapons of mass destruction but then said last week, no such weapons having
yet been found, that "there was no imminent threat" to justify a war against Iraq. While those two statements are not automatically
incompatible, they suggest confusion or worse.

Interesting you quoted this part. From the very beginning, almost everybody believed Hussein had WMD (including Clark), and from the very beginning, Clark was against the war in Iraq.... so i don't know what the 'confusion' (and what could possibly be worse that the author is suggesting) is.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,530
3
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, so, like so many Americans he trusted the President only to find out later that he was being lied to. He didn't "waffle", he "realized".
Wow you should email that retort to Clark so he can use it, that was classic!
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, so, like so many Americans he trusted the President only to find out later that he was being lied to. He didn't "waffle", he "realized".

LOL. You are an awesome rationalizer. "This is Clark! He couldn't have 'waffled', he must have been duped!"
 

PatboyX

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2001
7,024
0
0
it seems more like he got more evidence than he waffled.
but...the argument seems to have stalemated in this thread regardless.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Considering that U.S. intelligence concerning Iraq was dead wrong, I think a lot of people are re-evaluating our little adventure in Iraq. After Bush & team cherry picked the intel and located fraudulent intel via defectors that matched their agenda and fed it to the American people as well as Congress, I don't think it should surprise anyone that people are changing their minds.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,085
5,618
126
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, so, like so many Americans he trusted the President only to find out later that he was being lied to. He didn't "waffle", he "realized".

Can't defend clark, so you bash bush... interesting...

Both, simultaneously, or not.

"Realization": It's like a man who stubbs his toe, before the event he flung his foot freely wherever he traversed, but after the event he is more aware of his foot movements, especially around the object where the stubbing took place.

Clark stubbed his toe on Bush, hence his change in attitude. I'm sure even you don't trust someone who lied, deceived, or conned yourself, especially if at one point you publicly supported that person? To do so is utter foolishness.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I like the dancing Clark much better.

It's quite humerous to read your link syzygy. The author complains that Clark is inconsistant. He begins with this ridiculous hatchet attact of clarvioance:

its not clairvoyance if clark had repeatedly hinted about his presidential ambitions, a point the article did not develop with historical quotes because
it did not occur to the author to review the obvious. clark's supporters had foisted his name for a presidential run and he did nothing to dissuade them.
at the very least that amounts to his tacit approval. it conceivably could be traced to his own conniving, but i'm not the conspiratorial sort. i'll leave that
to you. no need for alien esp. sorry.

as a means to bolster the notion that Clark should have been aware that he can't politically just change of mind, and finishes with this notion which you seem to have ignored:

apparently its too much to expect a little consistency from your favorite presidential candidate. do you need to dole out the welfare this early though ?
with the democratic field teeming with crypto-bomb chuckers, you may have settled on a favorite candidate that is most programmed to disappoint the
tin-beanie brigade. oh, how desperate we must be, but then you are battling against a sitting president who 'kills perople . .. with a passion.'

"Maybe the lesson to be gleaned from the scrutiny that Clark and his ever shifting Iraq statements are receiving now is also about television. The medium demands from its talking heads an instant opinion about everything, and that can make a fool of anyone."

It seems to have made one of you. More frightening than somebody who kills people to save them is somebody who does it with passion.

you didn't 'read' the article. i mean your eyes certainly floated over the letters. absorbed a few coded terms. the rest msut've been vented as
unworthy materiele, useless as propoganda, and too inflexible for distortion.

there is a portion where clark writes on two succesive april days, the 10th and 11th, for the london times, some vague incohorent babbling
about 'liberation', about 'the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions', and something
along the lines of 'Many Gulf States will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express'.
you just ignore this. good boy.
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: sandorski
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Originally posted by: sandorski
Hmm, so, like so many Americans he trusted the President only to find out later that he was being lied to. He didn't "waffle", he "realized".

Can't defend clark, so you bash bush... interesting...

Both, simultaneously, or not.

"Realization": It's like a man who stubbs his toe, before the event he flung his foot freely wherever he traversed, but after the event he is more aware of his foot movements, especially around the object where the stubbing took place.

Clark stubbed his toe on Bush, hence his change in attitude. I'm sure even you don't trust someone who lied, deceived, or conned yourself, especially if at one point you publicly supported that person? To do so is utter foolishness.

he stubbed his toe but didn't feel any pain. the praise he heaped on the campaign came as the troops achieved 'liberation' (his word - re-read
the article) of baghdad. he had much else to say along the same vein at a very, very late date. while your 'both, simultaneously, or not' is very
clark-esque, he's running for president, while you . .. well . . are you ? if yes, wipe your palm and turn to moonbeam. his cookie jar is out and
he's just spraying the green around.
 

sMiLeYz

Platinum Member
Feb 3, 2003
2,696
0
76
Give it up, syzygy. We were all conned by George W. Bush. Just some of us woke up before it was too late ;).
 

syzygy

Diamond Member
Feb 5, 2001
3,038
0
76
Originally posted by: sMiLeYz
Give it up, syzygy. We were all conned by George W. Bush. Just some of us woke up before it was too late ;).

zombies too show a measure of consciouness yet i would not count them as awake. by and large the criticism against iraq is stillborn because
many of his accusers are fighting a different battle, one long declared over and whose results they would like to overturn with a pyrrhic victory
here.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
I wonder what Bush's current flock of supporters would say if he said he have a revelation from on high and had to tell the truth about Iraq and the invasion of Iraq...
After he told the story of deceit he says but, even though we invaded under false pretenses it was right to do...
Do you suppose they would say.. Now there goes an honorable man? Or.. Clinton would have continued to lie and that is why I'd never vote democratic?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Dancing fool is Bush. He still hasn't decided why we are in Iraq, and the war is over, and now the US taxpayer is getting bent over for the "reconstruction."
Why do we need to spend our tax money for things that we didn't break. I mean, why should US taxpayer have to pay for their area and zip codes?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Urban renewal?
Practicing Marshall law techniques?
Oil?
Open the Iraqi markets to our products that are made in Mexico?
Seems the honorable thing to do given if we don't Iran will?
Someone said a war is the first step to our economic recovery?
We have aliens in the White House?