verte76
Blue Crack Addict
All candidates screw up. They're human. It's a matter of whose screw-ups annoy you the most.
General Clark steals Deans thunder......
- Thread starter STING2
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
womanfish said:
Use some "fucking commin sense"? ROFLMAO He went and did this against the advice of the State Department. It was one of the Major Reasons Clinton did not like him at that time. It was one of the Major reasons he ALMOST did not get his 4th Star.
The MLADIC meeting puts him right up there with Rumsfeld meeting Saddam.
As for the articles I posted....some were from 1997 on this topic. There are many more out there from other news sources written well before he became a politician.
This has nothing to do with Bush.
[Q]And the indecision about going to war with Iraq - I for one totally identify with. I was nowhere near decided on how I felt about it when it happened. At least he can look at the evidence now, or should I say lack there of, and say that it was gone about the wrong way.[/Q]
It has nothing to do with saying Bush went about it the wrong way. There are other candidates who have consistently said this. He supported giving the President last November by saying publicly at campain rallys for a congressman that congress should give the president the authority. Then last Thursday he reaffirmed this position and then on Friday he changed his mind.
[Q]It's hilarious that the Republicans are working over-time to find these stories and then blow them so far out of proportion. He's been in the military for 30 some odd years and they dig up 2 or 3 stories of mistakes that he made. Any of us should be so lucky.
Right now Bush is making world altering mistakes in front of our face and no one seems to question or care. [/Q]
Yes, Bush has made mistakes, and his decisions over the past year have caused me to resign from an elected position in the Republican party in my town. It has caused me to resign from the party.
That said, why should Wesley Clark be GIVEN the benefit of the doubt on his posisitions, and President Bush not be given the same treatment? It is obvious the first part of the War was EXTREMELY well executed. And maybe the President himself deserves the right to say, the part we are in now, could have been completed differently.
[Q]As for the CNN thing and the Saddam/Sept. 11th issue. I still believe that this is true and that he was pressured by the White House to make a connection and that he CNN was pressured to cut him and he just isn't going to name names, which I understand with the position that he is in. [/Q]
There are two things here.
#1 He accused the White House of trying to get him to link Saddam to 9/11 on the day 9/11 happened. That is LIE #1. He came up with a second LIE#2 about this incident by claiming it was a Canadian Middle East Think Tank.
#2 He accused the WHite House of trying to get him fired. Now this is probably believable in my book, and I give him the benefit of the doubt on this because he has ZERO proof if nobody at CNN will back him on it.
These two incidents make him seem like H. Ross Perot crying wolf.
Now, you may not like the things I posted in here, but if I am not mistaken I may very well have been the first person pointing to Clark as an interesting candidate for president back in January. Having started my research, I no longer think he is the man. The good thing that you can celebrate, is that I have never in my life picked the winning candidate in a presidential election.
1980 John Anderson
1984 Walter Mondale
1988 Gary Hart, Mike Dukakis
1992 Ross Perot
1996 Bob Dole
2000 John McCain, Al Gore
I have a great track record!!!!
See ya!!!
Last edited:
deep
Blue Crack Addict
dread,
give yourself credit
you got 2000 right!
give yourself credit
you got 2000 right!
deep said:
McCain won???
Hehe
A funny ending to the hat incident with Clark....
[Q]That escapade cost Victor Jackovich his job as U.S. ambassador to Bosnia. He was sacked partly for not exercising sufficient restraint on the mercurial Clark and for not preventing him from gallivanting off to Banja Luka. The sequel came at Belgrade a year later during the diplomacy leading to the Dayton peace conference. Milosevic, smiling broadly, humiliated Clark by returning his hat to him. That helps explain the general's intense personal animosity for the Yugoslav president. [/Q]
So Clark did indeed get his hat back.
http://www.diaspora-net.org/food4thought/novak.htm
Bunbury
Refugee
Clark is pimp period! Quit hating and perpetrating.
of course she is! she's always screaming conspiracy when someone really ought to just throw her in the loony bin. this isn't some left wing person screaming to shut up someone in the right wing, this is someone who's concerned about someone who honestly acts like they're a littlewomanfish said:
.womanfish, she also wrote a book called slander. i've seen her on real time with bill maher all the time; a laugh was had by all. meaning everyone else on the show.
p.s. - bunbury, like the song you're playing in your sig.
Black helicopters over 43rd Street!
The New York Times' chief conspiracy theorist unloads a corker: Wes Clark as pawn of Hillary.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charles Taylor
Sept. 23, 2003 | Conspiracy theories, like old habits, die hard. In Monday's New York Times, William Safire, formerly of the Nixon White House, advanced the theory that the Clintons are encouraging Gen. Wesley Clark in his bid for the presidency to extend their nefarious hold over the Democratic Party, keeping Howard Dean's pesky upstarts in check and ensuring that the party keeps a center-left agenda. As Safire sees it, Bill and Hillary are waiting for Bush to become vulnerable (become vulnerable?) so "the politically inexperienced" Clark, having routed all the other Democratic candidates, can step aside to make way for Hillary.
This is such a doozy that the next time I pass by the corner of West 43rd Street in Times Square, I fully expect to see that Safire has staked out a piece of pavement down the block from the Black Israelites to alert passersby to the Clintons' evil scheme. (The LaRouche people have already claimed Union Square.)
None of it should be surprising, though, coming from a writer who spent column after column theorizing about the "real" reasons for Vince Foster's "apparent suicide," a man who once wrote a column entitled "Reading Hillary's Mind" (presumably the Times could not engage Jeanne Dixon that day), who demanded special prosecutor Robert Fiske's resignation when he reported Foster's suicide had nothing to do with Whitewater or the Clintons.
This, of course, wasn't enough to distinguish Safire at the Times where the reporting on Whitewater in particular and the Clintons in general appears to have been fact-checked by Jayson Blair. But in the aftermath of the brouhaha Blair stirred up, you'd think the Times would be more careful. By the end of the third paragraph of Safire's column ("Clintons Anoint Clark") he has suggested that Clark improperly arranged defense contracts for clients following his retirement. And that the press will not be able to get to the bottom of that because the general has surrounded himself with Clintonian obfuscators.
If there's anything useful about Safire's column it's that it offers a glimpse into just how sleazy the right's smear tactics will be against Wesley Clark. In the best piece I've seen on Clark, Richard Goldstein, in last week's Village Voice, recounted the slams already made by Tom "Bug Juice" DeLay and George "Stretch" Will. After months of hearing the right wing tell us that anyone who questions our military policies is unpatriotic, it will be instructive to record all the potshots they are willing to take at Clark.
Like a greyhound at the dog track, Safire is already out of the gate, his beady eyes focused on the mechanical rabbit. He has perfected the dubious art of conjecture as smear. And despite his avuncular demeanor, and the esteem in which he's held among colleagues, that shouldn't keep anyone from calling him on the loopiness of his premises or the Times' acquiescence in running them. He genuinely believes there was something dark and covered up in Vince Foster's suicide. He believes that Clark is the Trojan horse for Clinton II. Hell, he probably believes that Sidney Blumenthal is attempting to control his thoughts by beaming alpha waves off the top of the Chrysler Building. The difference between William Safire and the average crazy old coot to be found in any New York City diner explaining to anyone who listens that the aliens have taken over is that Safire gets paid for his ramblings and has a better tailor. Not much difference at all.
Melon
The New York Times' chief conspiracy theorist unloads a corker: Wes Clark as pawn of Hillary.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Charles Taylor
Sept. 23, 2003 | Conspiracy theories, like old habits, die hard. In Monday's New York Times, William Safire, formerly of the Nixon White House, advanced the theory that the Clintons are encouraging Gen. Wesley Clark in his bid for the presidency to extend their nefarious hold over the Democratic Party, keeping Howard Dean's pesky upstarts in check and ensuring that the party keeps a center-left agenda. As Safire sees it, Bill and Hillary are waiting for Bush to become vulnerable (become vulnerable?) so "the politically inexperienced" Clark, having routed all the other Democratic candidates, can step aside to make way for Hillary.
This is such a doozy that the next time I pass by the corner of West 43rd Street in Times Square, I fully expect to see that Safire has staked out a piece of pavement down the block from the Black Israelites to alert passersby to the Clintons' evil scheme. (The LaRouche people have already claimed Union Square.)
None of it should be surprising, though, coming from a writer who spent column after column theorizing about the "real" reasons for Vince Foster's "apparent suicide," a man who once wrote a column entitled "Reading Hillary's Mind" (presumably the Times could not engage Jeanne Dixon that day), who demanded special prosecutor Robert Fiske's resignation when he reported Foster's suicide had nothing to do with Whitewater or the Clintons.
This, of course, wasn't enough to distinguish Safire at the Times where the reporting on Whitewater in particular and the Clintons in general appears to have been fact-checked by Jayson Blair. But in the aftermath of the brouhaha Blair stirred up, you'd think the Times would be more careful. By the end of the third paragraph of Safire's column ("Clintons Anoint Clark") he has suggested that Clark improperly arranged defense contracts for clients following his retirement. And that the press will not be able to get to the bottom of that because the general has surrounded himself with Clintonian obfuscators.
If there's anything useful about Safire's column it's that it offers a glimpse into just how sleazy the right's smear tactics will be against Wesley Clark. In the best piece I've seen on Clark, Richard Goldstein, in last week's Village Voice, recounted the slams already made by Tom "Bug Juice" DeLay and George "Stretch" Will. After months of hearing the right wing tell us that anyone who questions our military policies is unpatriotic, it will be instructive to record all the potshots they are willing to take at Clark.
Like a greyhound at the dog track, Safire is already out of the gate, his beady eyes focused on the mechanical rabbit. He has perfected the dubious art of conjecture as smear. And despite his avuncular demeanor, and the esteem in which he's held among colleagues, that shouldn't keep anyone from calling him on the loopiness of his premises or the Times' acquiescence in running them. He genuinely believes there was something dark and covered up in Vince Foster's suicide. He believes that Clark is the Trojan horse for Clinton II. Hell, he probably believes that Sidney Blumenthal is attempting to control his thoughts by beaming alpha waves off the top of the Chrysler Building. The difference between William Safire and the average crazy old coot to be found in any New York City diner explaining to anyone who listens that the aliens have taken over is that Safire gets paid for his ramblings and has a better tailor. Not much difference at all.
Melon
Richard Goldstein
The Great Butch Hope
Can Wesley Clark Deliver the Male?
September 17 - 23, 2003
By the end of this week, Wesley Clark could be the 10th Democrat to enter the presidential race. It's a long shot, to be sure, but the fact that two-thirds of voters in a recent poll couldn't name any Democratic candidate shows how open the contest is. As the first four-star general in modern history to run as a Democrat, Clark could fill this void. To understand his potential, consider how Republicans are already tarring him with the wuss brush. "A blow-dried Napoleon," snarked Tom DeLay, while George Will called the Bosnia operation Clark ran as NATO commander "the liberals' dream war" whose overriding aim was "to have zero U.S. fatalities." Not a manly tangle, like the one in which we're now ensnared.
It remains to be seen whether Clark can steal Dean's thunder?or whether he will settle for being someone's veep. But Clark may prevail by positioning himself as the anti-war warrior. He opposed the Iraqi invasion from the gung-ho git-go. He's against the Patriot Act, for affirmative action, and firmly pro-choice. While he's dodgy on gay issues?declaring himself against same-sex marriage but discreetly allowing that he favors civil unions?Clark has signaled that he would order a reconsideration of the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy. We'll see whether this adds up to a progressive agenda.
Right now, there's no record to point to, since Clark has never held office. What he does have is strong ties to Europe via NATO. That should resonate against Bush's blunderous provincialism. And it would be novel to have a president without major ties to the Fortune 500. Unlike Dean, whose aristo roots sometimes show beneath his populist 'do, Clark knew poverty as a child. As the campaign heats up, this narrative of the self-made military man could loom larger than the question of political creds.
Much will be made of Clark's Clinton connection. Both men are Rhodes scholars from Arkansas whose fathers died when they were very young. Their friendship is a real asset for Clark given his political obscurity, but in the long run it might become a liability. You can count on the titans of talk radio to hammer home his alliance with the Great Fornicator and his Demon Queen. After all, the Clintons represent everything angry white men hate about liberalism today, and Clark is being positioned as a bridge to that constituency. As things stand, only 22 percent of white males call themselves Democrats.
Can guys who savor the Spike network bond with Clinton's man? The less gullible among them may. Certainly Clark's four stars are a lot more authentic than Bush's strategically padded flight suit. And in the end, the presidency will depend not just on ideology but on how each candidate presents himself as a man.
Gender is the great unspoken force in American politics. It's every bit as powerful as race and class, perhaps more so because it seldom gets addressed. The fear and loathing that feminism inspires in many men (most of whom won't admit their terror) have enabled the Republicans to adapt the racial strategy that won them the South to the contours of sexual politics. The result is a gender gap in which straight white men tend to root for Republicans while women and minorities lean Democratic. This alignment is the reason why Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote.
For a while it looked as if 9-11 had demolished the gender paradigm, but it's already showing up in the California gubernatorial race, where women and minorities favor Cruz Bustamante while white boys are het up for Arnold. His Terminator persona is an FX version of the hyper-masculine performance that has made Bush the first president to inspire an action-hero doll.
But this aggravated macho has consequences, as the quagmire in Iraq demonstrates. And there's nothing like a stagnant economy to put male megalomania in perspective. Just as bitch slapping is losing its cultural luster, a related shift may be happening in politics. People are beginning to see through Bush's macho stance. It has always looked a little ripe, precisely because it's a product of uncertainty. But that quality of bluster in the face of self-doubt was once a point of connection between Bush and men who felt threatened (and there are millions of those). Now that the so-called crisis of masculinity has become an actual world crisis, the president's compensatory swagger reads as it really is: dangerous.
You can bet your brewski that Democratic strategists are searching for a candidate with the right kind of masculine presentation, one that seems nurturing to women and reassuring to men. This is where Clark comes in. If Clinton was a bottom-feeding Rhett Butler, Clark is Ashley Wilkes. And because he's struggled for his genteel bearing, the way folks who rise in the military often do, it looks much more accomplished than Bush's G.I. George act.
Of course, a lot can happen in a year, including another terrorist attack or a well-timed war. But it's unlikely that Americans would approach either with the same crude sense of limitless clout. We have to be canny and cooperative now. The days of Dirty Harry, the enforcer who makes his own rules, are over. And Clark seems to draw from the other Clint Eastwood, the man who comprehends complexity and endures in the face of pain. America may be ready for that kind of cowboy.
I don't take solace in uniforms, and I'm more likely to admire those who resisted the Vietnam War than those who distinguished themselves by fighting in it, as Clark did. I don't trust avowed centrists (who often turn out to be closet neocons) and I'm not eager to get into bed with a creature of the Democratic Leadership Council. I'd rather shack up with Liza Minnelli.
But it would be dishonest to claim that the events of 9-11 haven't affected me. I live a mile from ground zero, and that gives me a very tangible perspective on security. I opposed the Iraq adventure because it reeked of the macho logic that had given us Vietnam, and it is turning out pretty much as I feared. But I'm open to a candidate, in or out of uniform, who knows how to form the kind of global alliances that will keep me alive. And as for sleeping with centrists, after four years of Bush I wouldn't reject an unreliable suitor whose heart seems positive if not pure?as long as he can win.
That begs the question of whether falling for the military mystique can be anything but a patriarchal gesture. I worry about that, but at this point I'm willing to settle for anyone who advances the process of social change, even modestly. Maybe I'm fronting for my own retreat, but I've come to believe the revolution that endures is the one that happens slowly. And if Clark can make America see the difference between macho and masculinity?that is, between a defensive response to women and a confident one?he just might earn the ultimate star, as commander in chief.
Melon
The Great Butch Hope
Can Wesley Clark Deliver the Male?
September 17 - 23, 2003
By the end of this week, Wesley Clark could be the 10th Democrat to enter the presidential race. It's a long shot, to be sure, but the fact that two-thirds of voters in a recent poll couldn't name any Democratic candidate shows how open the contest is. As the first four-star general in modern history to run as a Democrat, Clark could fill this void. To understand his potential, consider how Republicans are already tarring him with the wuss brush. "A blow-dried Napoleon," snarked Tom DeLay, while George Will called the Bosnia operation Clark ran as NATO commander "the liberals' dream war" whose overriding aim was "to have zero U.S. fatalities." Not a manly tangle, like the one in which we're now ensnared.
It remains to be seen whether Clark can steal Dean's thunder?or whether he will settle for being someone's veep. But Clark may prevail by positioning himself as the anti-war warrior. He opposed the Iraqi invasion from the gung-ho git-go. He's against the Patriot Act, for affirmative action, and firmly pro-choice. While he's dodgy on gay issues?declaring himself against same-sex marriage but discreetly allowing that he favors civil unions?Clark has signaled that he would order a reconsideration of the military's don't-ask-don't-tell policy. We'll see whether this adds up to a progressive agenda.
Right now, there's no record to point to, since Clark has never held office. What he does have is strong ties to Europe via NATO. That should resonate against Bush's blunderous provincialism. And it would be novel to have a president without major ties to the Fortune 500. Unlike Dean, whose aristo roots sometimes show beneath his populist 'do, Clark knew poverty as a child. As the campaign heats up, this narrative of the self-made military man could loom larger than the question of political creds.
Much will be made of Clark's Clinton connection. Both men are Rhodes scholars from Arkansas whose fathers died when they were very young. Their friendship is a real asset for Clark given his political obscurity, but in the long run it might become a liability. You can count on the titans of talk radio to hammer home his alliance with the Great Fornicator and his Demon Queen. After all, the Clintons represent everything angry white men hate about liberalism today, and Clark is being positioned as a bridge to that constituency. As things stand, only 22 percent of white males call themselves Democrats.
Can guys who savor the Spike network bond with Clinton's man? The less gullible among them may. Certainly Clark's four stars are a lot more authentic than Bush's strategically padded flight suit. And in the end, the presidency will depend not just on ideology but on how each candidate presents himself as a man.
Gender is the great unspoken force in American politics. It's every bit as powerful as race and class, perhaps more so because it seldom gets addressed. The fear and loathing that feminism inspires in many men (most of whom won't admit their terror) have enabled the Republicans to adapt the racial strategy that won them the South to the contours of sexual politics. The result is a gender gap in which straight white men tend to root for Republicans while women and minorities lean Democratic. This alignment is the reason why Al Gore beat Bush in the popular vote.
For a while it looked as if 9-11 had demolished the gender paradigm, but it's already showing up in the California gubernatorial race, where women and minorities favor Cruz Bustamante while white boys are het up for Arnold. His Terminator persona is an FX version of the hyper-masculine performance that has made Bush the first president to inspire an action-hero doll.
But this aggravated macho has consequences, as the quagmire in Iraq demonstrates. And there's nothing like a stagnant economy to put male megalomania in perspective. Just as bitch slapping is losing its cultural luster, a related shift may be happening in politics. People are beginning to see through Bush's macho stance. It has always looked a little ripe, precisely because it's a product of uncertainty. But that quality of bluster in the face of self-doubt was once a point of connection between Bush and men who felt threatened (and there are millions of those). Now that the so-called crisis of masculinity has become an actual world crisis, the president's compensatory swagger reads as it really is: dangerous.
You can bet your brewski that Democratic strategists are searching for a candidate with the right kind of masculine presentation, one that seems nurturing to women and reassuring to men. This is where Clark comes in. If Clinton was a bottom-feeding Rhett Butler, Clark is Ashley Wilkes. And because he's struggled for his genteel bearing, the way folks who rise in the military often do, it looks much more accomplished than Bush's G.I. George act.
Of course, a lot can happen in a year, including another terrorist attack or a well-timed war. But it's unlikely that Americans would approach either with the same crude sense of limitless clout. We have to be canny and cooperative now. The days of Dirty Harry, the enforcer who makes his own rules, are over. And Clark seems to draw from the other Clint Eastwood, the man who comprehends complexity and endures in the face of pain. America may be ready for that kind of cowboy.
I don't take solace in uniforms, and I'm more likely to admire those who resisted the Vietnam War than those who distinguished themselves by fighting in it, as Clark did. I don't trust avowed centrists (who often turn out to be closet neocons) and I'm not eager to get into bed with a creature of the Democratic Leadership Council. I'd rather shack up with Liza Minnelli.
But it would be dishonest to claim that the events of 9-11 haven't affected me. I live a mile from ground zero, and that gives me a very tangible perspective on security. I opposed the Iraq adventure because it reeked of the macho logic that had given us Vietnam, and it is turning out pretty much as I feared. But I'm open to a candidate, in or out of uniform, who knows how to form the kind of global alliances that will keep me alive. And as for sleeping with centrists, after four years of Bush I wouldn't reject an unreliable suitor whose heart seems positive if not pure?as long as he can win.
That begs the question of whether falling for the military mystique can be anything but a patriarchal gesture. I worry about that, but at this point I'm willing to settle for anyone who advances the process of social change, even modestly. Maybe I'm fronting for my own retreat, but I've come to believe the revolution that endures is the one that happens slowly. And if Clark can make America see the difference between macho and masculinity?that is, between a defensive response to women and a confident one?he just might earn the ultimate star, as commander in chief.
Melon
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Dreadsox said:
so he played dress up with a Serb hat.
It is not like the current Com. in Chief ever played dress-up.
------>Certainly Clark's four stars are a lot more authentic than Bush's strategically padded flight suit.
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Thanks for posting those melon. They are great articles.
Sherry Darling
New Yorker
melon said:
My god I've waited so long to hear someone say that!
And this!
Word! Triple word!
thanks Melon!!
SD
I find the issue with Mladic deeply disturbing. What the hell is a 3 star general doing meeting Mladic, a person who is guilty of murdering 250,000 Bosnian Muslims between March 1992 and December 1995? If there is a legimate reason fine, but know one has specifically said what that was. We know the US State Department told him not to go. He more than just met with this guy, he seems to have enjoyed it. Mladic at the time Clark met had murdered more people in Europe than anyone since Hitler.
Its about time Clark explained what the hell was going on. It will be interesting to see how Clark explains his position on the Iraq War. Waffle may become a term applied to more than just Clinton and Dean. I would of expected Clark to be a staight shooter, but it appears he is ready to do what is politically correct to win the Democratic nomination.
Its about time Clark explained what the hell was going on. It will be interesting to see how Clark explains his position on the Iraq War. Waffle may become a term applied to more than just Clinton and Dean. I would of expected Clark to be a staight shooter, but it appears he is ready to do what is politically correct to win the Democratic nomination.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
He led a successful campaign in Bosnia.
Maybe he learned some things in that meeting that contributed to our success.
nit pick all you want.
This current Admin just cut a deal with Saddam's Sec of Defense and welcomed him with open arms, where is Novak's attack on this.
Maybe he learned some things in that meeting that contributed to our success.
nit pick all you want.
This current Admin just cut a deal with Saddam's Sec of Defense and welcomed him with open arms, where is Novak's attack on this.
deep,
"He led a successful campaign in Bosnia."
Wrong. He led a successful campaign in Kosovo!
"Maybe he learned some things in that meeting that contributed to our success."
Well lets hear it then!
Melon,
"Then why don't we start comparing what Bush said during his campaign to get elected versus what he has actually done as president? "Waffle" would be too kind of a word."
At least he was consistent when running for the election. Obviously being in the office itself and dramatic world events to including the worse attack on US soil in US history can easily change some idea's held during a campaign. I would not want to elect any President who decided he had to stick to original campaign promises even if National Security and other un forseen events dictated otherwise.
"He led a successful campaign in Bosnia."
Wrong. He led a successful campaign in Kosovo!
"Maybe he learned some things in that meeting that contributed to our success."
Well lets hear it then!
Melon,
"Then why don't we start comparing what Bush said during his campaign to get elected versus what he has actually done as president? "Waffle" would be too kind of a word."
At least he was consistent when running for the election. Obviously being in the office itself and dramatic world events to including the worse attack on US soil in US history can easily change some idea's held during a campaign. I would not want to elect any President who decided he had to stick to original campaign promises even if National Security and other un forseen events dictated otherwise.
Bunbury
Refugee
deep said:
I somewhat posted that earlier not sure if anyone paid attention
Yea, good point
Bunbury
Refugee
STING2 said:
True, but he was the still the commander of NATO.
Regardless, I'm reading paranoia in here concerning Wesley Clark of him meeting a known war criminal, again I argue strategic reasons. So that makes Wesley Clark a war criminal? B.S.
This guy is probably the most suited candidate for President, he has experience as a leader and he's an academic. Now, those have to be top criteria for the Presidency. Something Bush is remotely familiar with
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Bush on the campaign trail: "One way we can be seen as the ugly American is to go around to other countries and tell them how they ought to be doing things"
Bush after elected: "We are going to go into Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein and set up a democracy"
There's a difference between changing your mind due to circumstances that occur and completely changing a foreign policy philosophy.
______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
Bush after elected: "We are going to go into Iraq, remove Saddam Hussein and set up a democracy"
There's a difference between changing your mind due to circumstances that occur and completely changing a foreign policy philosophy.
______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
And which are you accusing Bush of in your post?
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
nbcrusader said:
That's amusing.
And I'm not accusing, just letting ol' GW's words and actions speak for themselves.
Republican's brush this off as nothing, but Clark had a few days of indecision on whether he supported the Iraq war and he's the biggest waffler to ever live. Hypocrisy has it's benifits i suppose.
______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
Last edited:
nbcrusader
Blue Crack Addict
No one has accused Clark of being the biggest waffler to ever live.
It is interesting, however, that in his first days as a presidental candidate that he would make conflicting statements on what is one of the Democrat's leading hot button issues for the campaign.
You can find "waffles" in every candidate.
It is interesting, however, that in his first days as a presidental candidate that he would make conflicting statements on what is one of the Democrat's leading hot button issues for the campaign.
You can find "waffles" in every candidate.
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
nbcrusader said:
So true. I guess I find it more important to go with a person's final decision on something. But then again you can never tell when something is final, they may waffle again I suppose.
Politicians suck.
______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
Politicians are human. Period. Tell me if any of you have ever changed your mind on a topic?
I also know that the media is very predatory in general with public figures, so I find it hard to believe that they will ever truly like a political candidate and not accuse them of "waffling" at one point or another. But, again, tell me any person who has never changed their mind on a subject.
Melon
I also know that the media is very predatory in general with public figures, so I find it hard to believe that they will ever truly like a political candidate and not accuse them of "waffling" at one point or another. But, again, tell me any person who has never changed their mind on a subject.
Melon
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Yeah, I know that it's not the politicians who (always) suck. Everyone changes their mind on things. But I change my mind of what I'm having for dinner or what movie I'm going to see. The biggest might be what job to take or car to buy, but these aren't significant. When you change your mind and you are (or are going to be) the leader of the free world. Things take on an outstanding measure of importance.
When the media digs, they will find that every candidate has flip-flopped on issues. Again, that's why actions have to speak louder than words.
______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
When the media digs, they will find that every candidate has flip-flopped on issues. Again, that's why actions have to speak louder than words.
______________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
Klaus
Refugee
It would be absolutely wise to change your mind if you have new informations which proof that your first idea was wrong
womanfish
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Klaus said:
true klaus, although IMO Bush changed from a good policy to a bad one. He took into account new factors, but came up with the wrong result of what to do about it.
_____________________________
General Wesley Clark for President
STING2 said:
And that is what drew me to Johnn McCain, and it is what no candidate to date is willing to do in my opinion. Straight Talk!
I miss McCain and I know many who were hoping this would be the way CClarrk is.
Time will tell..
My computerr is typing doubles.
Ouch!
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III- Latest: Headache in a Suitcase
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
