America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Boy, there's some names on there that are looking for the keys to the White House that are saying the complete opposite. They cry that Bush is a liar, but wasn't these people that voted for us to go into Iraq? Weren't some of these people briefed or in the Senate Intelligence Committee meetings?

Who's really lying?

Speak loudly and carry a tiny tiny stick.

....Clark was outspoken from the start and he has not really waivered on his opinion....

What?!?!?! He told congress in I think Nov '02, that we did not require anybody's permission to invade Iraq, that the failure of Iraq to live up to commitments made to secure the cease fire was justification enough, and that Iraq was most likely holding out WMDs. He was FIRMLY BEHIND THE WAR!!! He just conveniently forgot that those Senate hearings were videotaped.

I, on the other hand see plenty of harm coming from "Hanoi John", and some of the others almost make Gore look good!

Wesley Clark was never for the Iraq war.
FYI it was Sept 23 2002 and Sept 26 2002
We have it on tape. See for yourself. Don't buy into the BS of Kerry and or Edwards. There nice people to be sure. But populist politics is a tactic of dishonest politics. Wesley Clark is IMO the most qualified, most sincere person to have run for President in my lifetime.
I hope eveyone takes the time to get to know his plans and policies as well as his history.

http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html (Page 4)

No no. You are refering to the Pristina Airport incident in where Lt Gen Michael Jackson said to Clark "I'm not going to start WWIII for you". The fact is that there was a rogue russian unit that was en route to the airport and Clark - in coordination with the state dept, who succeeded in keeping Russia from directly aiding Serbia - wanted to block them from landing and taking the airport. Two days later, a british envoy did meet with the Russian troops and there was no incident. In fact the Russian team that was there was in desperate need of fuel and provisions lol.

Michael Jackson himself has said that his comment was a bit of exageration.

I've had a chance to hear from the many many Kosovar families (Although I haven't heard from all 1.5 million) whose lives were saved because of what we did in Kosovo.

Also, I'm not completely opposed to the Iraq war. I think this needed to be taken care of. The problem is that we blew off our friends and allies in the quest for war. The problem is that we have supercharged Al-Quaeda recruiting. The problem is that Iraq has been under our thumb for decades and they know this and they are pissed. The problem is that we invaded another country without charging them internationally with a crime (Other than the events of a decade ago).
Colin Powell has done an outstanding job of keeping this from erupting into a full scale regional war.

I'm a Republican who thinks that Wesley Clark is the best man for the job. George Bush is my second choice. I've argued with Rick in the past about George Bush and that he's not the devil haha. :)

I smell a clinton supporter... pugh!

DB, I think your comments were pretty funny actually. I'm sure your intelligent, examine what you said. You think all of those quotes were "taken out of context??" That simply doesn't wash, it's not logical, and you're a logical individual. So therefore, I saw it as a rationalization. People sometimes mold things to fit their perception of reality, i.e., I voted for Clinton, I didn't vote for Bush, and therefore, Clinton and his administration obviously couldn't have said those things, and if they did, it was taken out of context. That's a rationalization.

I won’t take them all, but let’s take just one…

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
- President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

Now what “context” exactly do you think that could have been used in to imply any other meaning? If you truly believe these quotes were fabricated, or that they are simply taken out of context and therefore, their meaning is being distorted, then offer a single example? Just 1? That would be a much more rational approach than simply discounting what was said because it doesn’t fit with your perception of reality which I’m thinking may be in support of our former president and contempt of our present one?

Sorry, not trying to be acerbic, it’s simple logic.

I really hate it when people use the “out of context” approach to these things. First of all, it is really hard to take a complete statement out of context. A few word maybe, but not a complete statement.


O.K., you want context? Well then for starters lets use Robby’s example.

On 17 February 1998, President Clinton delivered a speech at the Pentagon. Excerpts from that speech include the following comments:

The UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq still has stockpiles of chemical and biological munitions, a small force of Scud-type missiles, and the capacity to restart quickly its production program and build many, many more weapons.

Now, against that background, let us remember the past here. It is against that background that we have repeatedly and unambiguously made clear our preference for a diplomatic solution . . .

But to be a genuine solution, and not simply one that glosses over the remaining problem, a diplomatic solution must include or meet a clear, immutable, reasonable, simple standard.

Iraq must agree and soon, to free, full, unfettered access to these sites anywhere in the country. There can be no dilution or diminishment of the integrity of the inspection system that UNSCOM has put in place.

Now those terms are nothing more or less than the essence of what he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War. The Security Council, many times since, has reiterated this standard. If he accepts them, force will not be necessary. If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences.

Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.

And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too. . . .

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. We want to seriously reduce his capacity to threaten his neighbors.

I am quite confident, from the briefing I have just received from our military leaders, that we can achieve the objective and secure our vital strategic interests.


Seems pretty clear to me.

How about this one.

On 18 February 1998, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright appeared along with Defense Secretary William Cohen and White House National Security Adviser Sandy Berger at an internationally televised "town meeting" at Ohio State University. Protesters shouted from the stands throughout the meeting, and Secretary Albright attempted to quiet them by inviting some of them down to the floor to pose questions to her directly. As the Columbus Dispatch reported:

Few actually got the opportunity, but one — Jon Strange, a substitute teacher in Columbus — eventually took the microphone.

He repeatedly challenged Albright on whether Clinton policy is consistent or fair — attacking Saddam while acting favorably to American allies charged with atrocities against their own people, such as Indonesia and Turkey.

Albright said the United States had expressed its concerns in all of the occasions Strange mentioned. "What we ought to be thinking about is how to deal with Saddam Hussein," she added.

"You're not answering my question, Madam Albright!" Strange shouted, causing the secretary to momentarily back from the lectern.

At that point, Woodruff followed his question by asking why Iraq was branded an outlaw nation for manufacturing chemical and biological weapons that other nations also possess.

"It is a question of whether there is a proclivity to use them," Albright said. "Saddam Hussein is a repeat offender."

Many who attended yesterday's town meeting, while supportive of the nation's position on Iraq, said they are uncertain whether a military attack is the proper response.

Before the forum, Rob Aiken, a North Side resident and student at Ohio State, said he wanted to know what other options had been considered.

"I don't think killing a lot of folks will change a regime," he said.

Leandra Kennedy, a political science major from Philadelphia, said her biggest concern is that an attack has not received congressional approval.

"Saddam needs to comply," she said. "But I'm not sure about the way we're going about it, not taking into consideration how it will affect the international community in the long run."

Calling Saddam a bully who has terrorized his Middle East neighbors and tortured his own people, the officials said the administration's aim is to reduce his capacity to manufacture and deliver weapons of mass destruction.

"I am absolutely convinced that we could accomplish our mission," Berger said.

"The risks that the leader of a rogue state can use biological or chemical weapons on us or our allies is the greatest security risk we face," Albright said.


During that same meeting National Security Adviser Sandy Berger also spoke about how to make Saddam Hussein comply with United Nations weapons inspectors:
Berger won strong applause when he insisted Washington is still hoping for a peaceful way to persuade Saddam to give United Nations inspectors free access to suspected weapons sites. But Berger re-used a warning delivered Tuesday by President Bill Clinton:
"The only answer to aggression and outlaw behavior is firmness. . . He (Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983."

Again what’s out of context here?

I’d go on but it’s getting late and my google clicking finger is getting tired.

rwestcot

i think you just inspired me to do some research about clark.

you're correct, kerry is just another politician climbing the ladder.

i wouldn't take a check from edwards. i don't know anything about him, just a gut feeling.

thanks for the input.

usahog

i pose this question to you.

you are in a combat zone. your officer in charge, who is with you, of course has to make quick decisions that will affect the life of you and your buddies.

who do you want as your officer in charge? listed in alphabetical order

bush

clark

kerry

sorry for the threadjack Kcody!!!

also no need to try and pull up all the explinations on this one.. those who know better understand the thread.. those who don't want to know better.. read it the way they want to anyway so no matter how much Facts you give them.. they'll still be to blind to see....

Hog

http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_46494.asp

I hope everybody takes the time Rick. He is a great man. In your research, you will find one of the most insidious smear campaigns the RNC has ever had. They are deathly afraid of Wes Clark because they know as well as I do that Republicans and Independents will like and respect him.

usahog, I think that when we get down to the stark reality, the US armed forces haven't done anything under George Bushes leadership. The question is under whose leadership has George Bush been operating.

Anyways John Kerry sucks. In my mind the choice is between Wes Clark and George Bush with Wes Clark the clear winner. I hope Democrats realize this before its too late.

I've read both of Wes Clark's books and I can tell you that he understands America's place in the world. I think people are taken back because the books are called Winning/Waging modern war. The lesson of these books is that Winning modern wars entails the full use of international diplomacy, international law, international economics and the use of force only, only, only after these measures fail, only with a "clear and present danger" (That used to be important). And if force is undertaken, only with our allies - many of whom are bound by their own law to only go to war with an international mandate ie the UN or NATO.

There is no need to hate George Bush, that gets us nowhere. But man, the more you look at Clark the more clear it becomes. I wish I could explain in words how clear a choice he is for President.

Anyways, sorry for blabbing on like this.
Rich

rwestcot, Clark has a good looking resume. in the future here coming up.. I see Clark picking up Hillary for VP and running that ticket to beat Bush.. I myself do not want to see another Clinton in the Whitehouse and personally feel there should not be one on the Senate Floor!!!!! I myself see Wes Clark as a friend to the Clintons although they do not "Publically" back Clark they are there...Clark rose to power through the Clinton Administration and if he makes it to the Whitehouse then all the paid back favors will come out.. he is/was a yes man and although the artical from the member of the 101st says he's not.. I foresee him differently.... If H Norman Swartzcoft were to run on a Democratic ticket.. I WOULD vote for the man, If Colen Powell were to run on the same ticket I would vote for that Man.. if Tommy Franks were to run I would vote for him also...but as it stands right now.. Bush is the best one sitting on any tickets...
He made promisses and followed through with them...
we don't need no Wishy Washy Yes Men in the Whitehouse...he has been a strong leader for this Nation... and especially when we've needed that NOW...
I ask you.. How did Clark Rise in rank so fast? my answer would be he was in the "click" and the click at the time was Clintons Click... this country has been sold out at the top for way to long... and if you have senators and congresspersons not getting the job done in your state... don't you think it's time to take a different ticket in 2004? I will tell you one thing.. my ticket is not one sided and hasn't been for as long as I can remember voting...
I also care about whats going on in my Country and especially the Military men and women of this country... it's a Vet thing I guess...

but for now the best I see in Washington and on any ticket to there is Bush....

Hog

That is just more rah-rah political crap. What is your point? I hate it when people hide behind rah-rah crap and try to throw stones. What do you think they all based those statements on? You think they were all just talking out of ther tooters? Is your point that only Democrats thought that way? Well wake up and think about it.

Anyone notice the complete lack of people that served with Clark endorsing him?

Russell,
Good speaking with you on the phone this morning. I must respectfully disagree with you. I do see Bush as an attck dog, not Clark. Bush when questioned, wraps himself in the flag, and calls his attackers unAmerican. That in itself is UnAmerican. His whole Administration, is built on Propaganda, and half truths. I have done alot of research, remember, I did vote for Bush, against Gore the Bore, but am not happy with the way he is running our country. I know I will not change your mind, As I assume you will not change your mind, about Clark. I also realize that you suffer from Bush's changes with regards to VA benefits, among other things he is doing with retirement benefits, and such. I believe that General Clark will be a much better person, to help our veterans than Bush. Just my opinion, as you have yours. But I don't think that makes me UnAmerican, but Bush, and his attack dogs, would like to paint me that way. Just wondering, what presidential attack dog, leaked the name of a CIA operative to the press???
And is that the proper thing to do, when Presidential Policies are questioned???
Later
Dave (A.K.A. Homebrew)
P.S. I too would put "Run Hillary Run", on my FRONT bumper. LOL

Obviously the Democrats are lying. The Republicans are not capable of lying just as sure as the Democrats cannot tell the truth. Any dumbass knows that. Right?

Puffy, you think the Greens will run Nader again? There's always the write in protest vote for Sharpton? LOL!

snopes verifies this as TRUE, provides context:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/war/wmdquotes.asp