It seems that not long ago Clark was praising Bush and his team. Check the link: http://www.drudgereport.com/clark.htm
lol i love that last paragraph, don't worry if foreign leaders say they hate us they love and admire us really, they are just playing domestic politics rofl. The article seems to be trying to discredit him (obviously) but doing a bit of a hash job of it =/ just pulling random quotes out of context.
Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there." truth .... you know .... there was a little "accident" on 11/9 ,and some things changed on this day Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
as a democrat, ordinarily I would be a little worried about the above, but you know, I think if Satan were running for the Democratic nomination, i would be holding "Beelzebub Bashes Bush" signs Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Reality check: Clark's mission is to sabotage any chance of the democrats winning the next presidential election. Is he working for the RNC? No. He is working for the Clintonistas! Mrs Clinton intends to run in 2008 and can't take the chance that she will be up against a sucessful Democrat president going for a second term. Has anyone noticed that Clark was hand picked by President Clinton? He and Bill are from the same town and were raise in a similar maner. Silly me. Probably only a co-incidence. :bugeye:
Superfudd wrote: Oooh, from the same town? That's evil. Now be sure and let us know the moment you hear another such juicy scoop; that last one gave me goosebumps. :bugeye: Michael
Funny how Clark has the best chance thus far of winning. Seems to me, if the "clintonistas" (which sounds like a 50's Doo-Wap Group to me) had planned as you have laid out, it was a poor plan. Better to sit out and let Dean win, since that was what was likely to happen anyways. Nah, I don't think the Clinton's are stupid, which is what they would have to be to think Clark is not going to have a good shot at pulling this off...certainly as good a shot as Dean.
Clarks great advantage is his expertise in international affairs and the military. If he is the Democrats nominee, then Bush would have lost his main re-election issues, the war on teworism, and the militarism that Bush has so lauded. Gen. Clark knows the military more then anyone in the Chicken hawk neo-conservative group. They better get ready a rough rise is indeed coming to the election of 2004! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wes clark's war success.
wes is a war criminal.. any support for him is a direct attack on the democrats, this situation just sucks.. i was hoping for something more from the dems.. looks like i might be back supporting the greens.. kucinich was the only dem worth anything in my book
looks like i might be back supporting the greens nice idea ,it works great in my country with greens in the goverment !
Old News Clark's response to that very issue last night sold a bunch of Democrats. He hit the stage like a general and rolled over everything in his path. For the most part, he shined at the debate. MSNBC has WinMedia stream available of General Clark's response; warning, one ad at the front and one at the back. I'm looking for an actual transcript, as well. If Clark starts running away with it, the question will come up again, but I think it will largely be jealous conservative punits Ah ... the transcript ... at "Hardball": And Sharpton even got in on the act: And personally, I think the pundits were a little frightened by Clark. Matthews hosted analysis on Hardball, and a couple of times I could have sworn I was watching a different debate than the pundits: Vanden Heuvel is already sold either to passion or interest; she was watching a different debate than anybody else at the table or in my house. My local John Edwards fan sat with his jaw open at some of Clark's responses. I think the May 2001 speech is old news that will only matter to conservative pundits engaged in defending the president from a strangely polished Democratic field. I mean, I don't get people pushing Kerry (too Kennedy with that botox-looking smile and that haircut) or Lieberman (who knows he can't beat Bush) the way they did, but there's no doubt in my mind that the eight light-skinned candidates fared presidentially in the debate. And skin color really isn't that big a deal. Moseley-Braun doesn't stand a chance because she's a woman, and this is America, and it ain't happening this time around. Sharpton? Hey, he's the Reverend Al Sharpton. He's a great guy to have around for the campaign, but ... he's Al Sharpton. Sure, Graham can't win either the nomination or the election, but he's not Al Sharpton. Even I am stained by his history, which isn't nearly as scandalous as it seemed at the time. But being black has nothing to do with the fact that neither Moseley-Barun or Sharpton have a chance. Because, like Graham, they add to the field of polished, friendly, sparkling Democrats oozing out of the television set in what turns out to be the best public showing by Democrats in ... a decade? And, since I've gone on this long, my final score for the debate last night: Dean: Took serious hits last night, got bruised, showed his temper. But teapot-ridicule aside, I think his attitude might fare well against Bush's "Bring 'em on!", pro-wrestling approach to things. Edwards: Leaned heavily on blue-collar childhood, almost too heavily. But as my local Edwards fan noted, "It's that part of the campaign for him." And it's true; the South may rise behind him if he shows strong in Iowa and New Hampshire. He also played for the unions last night, and did very well at that. Gephardt: Ran as a proud Clinton Democrat. While there is wisdom in this, and while he tried to turn his stunning loss of the Democratic House to his advantage, he leaned too heavily on Clinton. Graham: Strong vice-presidential material at best. Very grandfatherly. I like this guy as affable and competent, but beyond that .... His presence, like Sharpton and Moseley-Braun, helped to present the Democrats well. Kerry: I don't know why some pundits are impressed with Kerry in the debate last night. That's not to say he didn't shine at certain moments, but Kerry knows he's kidding himself if he thinks he can still win out. He'll hang around as the anti-Dean until he gets mopped by Edwards in the South. Kucinich: Rep. Kucinich was the weak link in last night's debate. He didn't perform badly, but nothing about his presence impressed me other than he served to fill the dove spot on the stage. Lieberman: The Connecticut senator knows he's beat. He performed well, though. As a congressional leader, Lieberman knows he will remain an influential voice in the party, and seemed to lend some energy and polish to the field of candidates. He also served as a candidate for a narrow brand of Democrat that simply cannot carry at the convention. Moseley-Braun: Gender is an issue here more than race. As my local Edwards fan pointed out, "She's the candidate you wish you could nominate." Well-spoken, only moderately damaged by political scandals of the past, one is left playing a guessing game with the culture at large. The excuse becomes "She won't be taken seriously as the nominee," and there's a certain amount of introspection obliged at that point. Yes, I think other Democrats outshine her, but if we still had the Clinton economic boom and relative peace, I would gamble the White House against politics and nominate Moseley-Braun. Sharpton: While he hasn't a chance, he lent a very warm feeling to the debate. For that alone, I thank him. He's simply not presidential material right now, but he really did help the Democrats shine. There's talk among the pundits that the Party itself was the big winner last night, and I think Sharpton helped make that happen. Clark: I disagree with Vanden Heuvel. My joke is that Clark accomplished last night what he couldn't do in Kosovo: a completely clean war. He napalmed the question about the May, 2001 speech. He rolled through the $87 billion dollar question like a tank. He warded off the "investment banker" question and prevented any collateral damage. He ducked and weaved on the jobs question, relying on the promise of an economic strategy forthcoming; not a bad moment by any means, but perhaps his weakest. He was strong across the boards, but he was my choice going into the debate as well, so it's no surprise if I say he shone most brightly.
