Drudge Exposes Clark as Liar

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

JMF is loving his Drudge Report today.

I don’t believe in promoting people accused of insubordination...If you can’t be trusted with responsibility, why on earth would you be given more?

What does that have to do with anything?

That's why Im loving my Drudge Report today...Clark is asking for a promotion during a time of war after being run out of the Army for insubordination.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, if a somebody changes thir position to the helping of the Republicans (Zell), it's acceptable.  But is it is the other way around (Gore), it isn't.
"I only lie when it services me to do so."--Me

Zell is supporting Bush because the Dem party has changed, NOT because Zell has changed.  Also Zell has no skin in this game so he can't be accused of pandering.

And I tried to think of a GOP example, but couldn't come up with one.  Maybe Pat Buch would be a good example.

[Gustaf]

So, if a somebody changes thir position to the helping of the Republicans (Zell), it's acceptable.  But is it is the other way around (Gore), it isn't.
"I only lie when it services me to do so."--Me

Zell is supporting Bush because the Dem party has changed, NOT because Zell has changed.  Also Zell has no skin in this game so he can't be accused of pandering.

And I tried to think of a GOP example, but couldn't come up with one.  Maybe Pat Buch would be a good example.

Like Churchill, who changed parties TWICE!

[WONK]

great point jmcfst, if that is your real name.

[jravnsbo]

yes zell has not changed, the party has.  Anyone who read his book would know it.  His is advocating the same things he did as a praised Democrat governor.

So, if a somebody changes thir position to the helping of the Republicans (Zell), it's acceptable.  But is it is the other way around (Gore), it isn't.
"I only lie when it services me to do so."--Me

Zell is supporting Bush because the Dem party has changed, NOT because Zell has changed.  Also Zell has no skin in this game so he can't be accused of pandering.

And I tried to think of a GOP example, but couldn't come up with one.  Maybe Pat Buch would be a good example.

[Inmate Trump]

Zell is siding with Bush b/c he feels that there are no more Dems like Kennedy, FDR and Truman.  Which is very dead on about - there are no Dems like those three great men anymore.

[mossy]

His point is that all politicians are sinners, by your definition, and that those who get caught are being stupid. What's wrong with that?

Well, if you want to say Clark’s mistake was that he thought he could get away with it, that the minutes of Senate testimony couldn’t be compared against his lie, then yeah, I would say that was a major “mistake”, probably to such a level that it borders on lunacy.

It reveals Clark’s hunger for power and dovetails into the insubordination that ended his military career.

May I remind you that Clark was drafted,....and only recently joined the race?  Hardly a hunger for power........

And may I also remind you that perhaps as many as half the US has changed it's mind, after first trusting Bush & Co. was telling the truth?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

And may I also remind you that perhaps as many as half the US has changed it's mind, after first trusting Bush & Co. was telling the truth?

How was Clark "drafted", exactly?

And if you believe that Bush lied, doesn't Clark's Congressional testimony make him an accomplice in the deception?

[NorthernDog]

Clark is going on meltdown mode right after IA caucus.  Dean and Kerry will have a field day with his testimony, now available in audio at fine internet sites everywhere.  BTW, Clark seems to be getting more strident every day.  Now wants investigation of Iraq war decision and impeachment proceedings (Like a GOP congress would impeach Bush?)  Many, many Democrats voted for war resolution and supported Bush at the time.  Do we impeach them too?

[mossy]

And may I also remind you that perhaps as many as half the US has changed it's mind, after first trusting Bush & Co. was telling the truth?

How was Clark "drafted", exactly?

And if you believe that Bush lied, doesn't Clark's Congressional testimony make him an accomplice in the deception?

You can read the story on how Clark was drafted on his site, htt://www.Clark_2004.org.   I was one of the earliest supporters before he was a candidate.

I do not think you can fault a person in public life (or private, either) who publicly speaks in support of the sitting administration, when their only sin is trusting what is official policy, and they are being misled like everyone else......... (tangled sentence, but it's been a long day)

[TheWildCard]

And may I also remind you that perhaps as many as half the US has changed it's mind, after first trusting Bush & Co. was telling the truth?

How was Clark "drafted", exactly?

And if you believe that Bush lied, doesn't Clark's Congressional testimony make him an accomplice in the deception?

You can read the story on how Clark was drafted on his site, htt://www.Clark_2004.org.   I was one of the earliest supporters before he was a candidate.

I do not think you can fault a person in public life (or private, either) who publicly speaks in support of the sitting administration, when their only sin is trusting what is official policy, and they are being misled like everyone else......... (tangled sentence, but it's been a long day)

I hate to tell you this but that link doesn't work.... Not for me anyway

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

mossy,

<<You can read the story on how Clark was drafted on his site, htt://www.Clark_2004.org.   I was one of the earliest supporters before he was a candidate.>>

Clark was considering running for president for months, it was his choice, there is no "draft" for candidates.

---

<<I do not think you can fault a person in public life (or private, either) who publicly speaks in support of the sitting administration, when their only sin is trusting what is official policy, and they are being misled like everyone else.>>

To which sitting administration are you referring, Clinton or Bush?  

Are you seriously going to try to say that Clark, while in uniform and under Clinton’s reign, didn't believe Clinton's deception about Saddam having WMD; and then, once a civilian, became gullible to Bush to the point that Clark became Bush's puppet to march in front of Congress; and that you believe this gullible puppet, whose own insubordination led to his forced resignation of his commission as an officer and as supreme commander of NATO, is the one to lead America in the War on Terror?

Is that your theory?

[Nation]

 Am I the only person who thinks that this article is very stupid? (even though I don't like Clark)

The comments about the jubilation shown on tv in the immediate aftermath of Baghdad's fall does not express a vindication of the policy.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Am I the only person who thinks that this article is very stupid? (even though I don't like Clark)

The comments about the jubilation shown on tv in the immediate aftermath of Baghdad's fall does not express a vindication of the policy.

Well, the article is nothing more than a transcript of Clark's own words.  But obviously Clark isn't stupid, he just believes Americans are.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

.... (tangled sentence, but it's been a long day)

For Clark, a VERY long day.

[Wakie]

What about his claim that he was opposed to nation building?  Isn't that exactly what we're doing in Iraq?

Yeah, and the isolationists prior to Pearl Harbor changed their minds after 12/7/1941.  That doesn't make them liars.  In that case, the isolationists misjudged the threat.

Bush's nation building comment had to do with low level conflicts, it was not in the context of terrorism or a major conflict or a major attack on the American mainland.  He was simply saying he doesn’t believe America should be mucking around trying to fine tweak the world when we could be minding our own business.

If I say that I prefer to keep to myself, that doesn’t mean I won’t become aggressive if attacked.

In other words, you’re comparing apples to oranges.

Except that Iraq wasn't about terrorism.  There were no Iraqis involved in 9/11.  Al Qaeda had publicly condemned Hussein and called for his removal on numerous occassions.

Now Paul O'Neil has revealed that Bush wanted to take out Saddam before he was even in office (prior to 9/11).  Anyone would realize that such an action would require the rebuilding of Iraq.

This translates into a simple reality.  Bush lied.

Is it good that Saddam is gone?  Yes.  Was he removed because of terrorism?  Of course not.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

Wakie,

<<Now Paul O'Neil has revealed that Bush wanted to take out Saddam before he was even in office (prior to 9/11).>>

Gee, hasn't that been the official policy of the US since 1998, when Bill Clinton was president?

--

<<This translates into a simple reality.  Bush lied.>>

No, translates into someone who believes policy is more than print on paper.

---

<<Is it good that Saddam is gone?  Yes.  Was he removed because of terrorism?  Of course not.>>

Looks like the Gen Clark of Sept 2002 would disagree with you.  But, you're right, Iraq was not about terror, that is why it's just a coincidence that Libya is rolling over and Syria and Iran are shaking in their shoes, and that Kim Jong Il spends his nights in a  hardened bunker.

[mossy]

mossy,

<<You can read the story on how Clark was drafted on his site, htt://www.Clark_2004.org.   I was one of the earliest supporters before he was a candidate.>>

Clark was considering running for president for months, it was his choice, there is no "draft" for candidates.

---

<<I do not think you can fault a person in public life (or private, either) who publicly speaks in support of the sitting administration, when their only sin is trusting what is official policy, and they are being misled like everyone else.>>

To which sitting administration are you referring, Clinton or Bush?  

Are you seriously going to try to say that Clark, while in uniform and under Clinton’s reign, didn't believe Clinton's deception about Saddam having WMD; and then, once a civilian, became gullible to Bush to the point that Clark became Bush's puppet to march in front of Congress; and that you believe this gullible puppet, whose own insubordination led to his forced resignation of his commission as an officer and as supreme commander of NATO, is the one to lead America in the War on Terror?

Is that your theory?

Sorry about the link........try this one.......I think it might help....

http://clark04.com/drafthistory/

So, you're really worried about Bush going up against Clark, are you?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

So, you're really worried about Bush going up against Clark, are you?

No, I think Dean has the best chance of beating Bush, but I also think Dean has the best chance to lose in a landslide.

What does Clark bring to the table?  

A career ending in insubordination? The GOP has Clark's CO waiting in the wings to clean his clock.  Not to mention Gen Schwarzkopf and Gen Colin Powell.

And Clark's position on abortion (up to the last minute) is not going to fly with middle america or the South.

Clark has dodged answering the insubordination question and he continues to lie about his support on going to war in Iraq.  But he is nailed to the floor on both counts and he will not be able to continue to duck these questions.

I'd rather have Al Sharpton as president than someone as desperate as Clark.

Bring on Clark.  

[mossy]

So, you're really worried about Bush going up against Clark, are you?

No, I think Dean has the best chance of beating Bush, but I also think Dean has the best chance to lose in a landslide.

What does Clark bring to the table?  

A career ending in insubordination? The GOP has Clark's CO waiting in the wings to clean his clock.  Not to mention Gen Schwarzkopf and Gen Colin Powell.

And Clark's position on abortion (up to the last minute) is not going to fly with middle america or the South.

Clark has dodged answering the insubordination question and he continues to lie about his support on going to war in Iraq.  But he is nailed to the floor on both counts and he will not be able to continue to duck these questions.

I'd rather have Al Sharpton as president than someone as desperate as Clark.

Bring on Clark.  

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

[Wakie]

jmfcst, I am just amazed that you can't accept that Bush blatantly lied when he said he was opposed to nation building yet wanted to invade Iraq.  Do you think he was just stupid and didn't realize we'd have to rebuild the country afterwards?

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

jmfcst, I am just amazed that you can't accept that Bush blatantly lied when he said he was opposed to nation building yet wanted to invade Iraq.  Do you think he was just stupid and didn't realize we'd have to rebuild the country afterwards?

I understand what Bush was saying, I understood it then and I understand it now, and it is not inconsistent.  Basically he was saying that he didn't want the US involved in a lot of low level conflicts.  Instead he wanted the US prepared for bigger threats (i.e. missile defense, etc).

Also, you're forgetting that Bush never put Iraq into motion until AFTER 9/11.  He may have wanted to take Saddam out since taking office, but Bush's actions prior to 9/11 were simply to beef up US capability in order to be fully prepared.

Once 9/11 took place, then it became necessarily to not only to go after bin Laden, but to shake up our enemies by letting them know that America had finally awoken and their time was running out.

If Bush is re-elected, that lesson will probably (better) continue and it should be made known that if we are attacked again, our next response will be magnitudes greater than simply chasing terrorists and overthrowing Saddam.

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

I have said that barring a major geopolitcal event, Bush's chances for reelection are 90%.  But I think the chances for such a major event are good, so I currently have Bush at 60%.

I still think Bush can win by 20% or lose by 10%.

---

I think there are two winners on the Dem side to this week's events:

1) Edwards - very long shot, but at least he still has a shot at winning the nomination.
2) Sharpton - can't win the nomination, but with Braun out and the others bunched up together, Sharpton could win several states in the South.

Kerry and Geph are toast.  Geph is toast because he probably can't win the nomination.  Kerry is toast regardless if he wins the nomination.

Joe Lieb is dead.  Dean and Clark have the money, but Clark has been getting a free ride for the last two weeks.  That free ride ends Monday.

But if 4 candidates finish above 15% in IA and then go on to battle Clark in NH, all hell is going to break loose and the battle for the Dem nomination will become a blood bath.

The best possible GOP scenario is for Dean to emerge the victor from a very bloody fight having spent all his cash on his Dem rivals with Sharpton ensuring himself a speech at the convention.

[Gustaf]

And may I also remind you that perhaps as many as half the US has changed it's mind, after first trusting Bush & Co. was telling the truth?

How was Clark "drafted", exactly?

And if you believe that Bush lied, doesn't Clark's Congressional testimony make him an accomplice in the deception?

You can read the story on how Clark was drafted on his site, htt://www.Clark_2004.org.   I was one of the earliest supporters before he was a candidate.

I do not think you can fault a person in public life (or private, either) who publicly speaks in support of the sitting administration, when their only sin is trusting what is official policy, and they are being misled like everyone else......... (tangled sentence, but it's been a long day)

That's not the point, he claimed to have been consistently against the Iraq war since "a few weeks after 9/11" and that is directly contradicted by his other statements.

And, jmfcst, I disagree with your assesment on Clark's intelligence. The man is stupid, he has to be, doing something like that.

[© tweed]

JMF doesn't participate in extra-curricular feature at the forum or website, thus no prediction map nor any participation in the Atlas Fantasy elections.