Talk Elections

http://drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX WED JAN 15, 2003 11:28:25 ET XXXXX

WES CLARK MADE CASE FOR IRAQ WAR BEFORE CONGRESS; PRAISED PERLE ANALYSIS; TRANSCRIPT REVEALED

**World Exclusive**

Two months ago Democratic hopeful Wesley Clark declared in a debate that he has always been firmly against the current Iraq War.

"I've been very consistent ... I've been against this war from the beginning," the former general said in Detroit on October 26. "I was against it last summer, I was against it in the fall, I was against it in the winter, I was against it in the spring. And I'm against it now."

But just six month prior in an op-ed in the LONDON TIMES Clark offered praise for the courage of President Bush's action.

"President Bush and Tony Blair should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark wrote on April 10, 2003. "Can anything be more moving than the joyous throngs swarming the streets of Baghdad? Memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and the defeat of Milosevic in Belgrade flood back. Statues and images of Saddam are smashed and defiled."

Even the most ardent Clark supporter will question if Clark's current and past stand on the Iraq war -- is confusion or deception, after the DRUDGE REPORT reveals:

TWO WEEKS BEFORE CONGRESS PASSED THE IRAQ CONGRESSIONAL RESOLUTION WESLEY CLARK MADE THE CASE FOR WAR; TESTIFIED THAT SADDAM HAD 'CHEMICAL AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS'

Less than 18 months ago, Wesley Clark offered his testimony before the Committee On Armed Services at the U.S. House Of Representatives.

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

Clark continued: "There' s no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat.... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there' s no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

END

WOW!!  Armed Services Committee should have that on tape!  cna see the ads next week in NH already!

If that's true the man is a complete idiot.

If true this is a big gaffe for Clark.  But I'll wait to see if the major news networks (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, & CNN) pick it up.  Drudge doesn't do the greatest fact checking in the world.

Main Entry: gaffe  
Pronunciation: 'gaf
Function: noun
Etymology: French, gaff, gaffe
Date: 1909
: a social or diplomatic blunder

Main Entry: 1blun·der  
Pronunciation: 'bl&n-d&r
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): blun·dered; blun·der·ing  /-d(&-)ri[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English blundren
Date: 14th century
intransitive senses
1 : to move unsteadily or confusedly
2 : to make a mistake through stupidity, ignorance, or carelessness
transitive senses
1 : to utter stupidly, confusedly, or thoughtlessly
2 : to make a stupid, careless, or thoughtless mistake in

---

I don’t call not telling the truth a “gaffe” or “blunder”, rather I call it “lying”, “deceit”, etc.

All politicians lie.  But when they get caught in a blatant one it can best be called a gaffe.

Hate to say it but Clark has flip flopped a bit and this wouldn't shock me. He's a political opportunist from what I've seen anyway

"Opportunist" is exactly the right word to describe Clark.

If the major networks pick up on this story then it could definitely bury Clark's chances of winning the nomination, perhaps even of being running mate.

Also, expect Kerry's campaign team to run and run this one in NH.

They have audio of it.

Our differences may be due to religion - the bible never refers to sin as a "mistake" (gaffe, blunder, etc), therefore I don't call lying a "mistake".

When I catch my kids lying, I don't tell them they made a "mistake".  Likewise, if the Drudge story is true, Clark didn't "mistakenly" not tell the truth, it was deliberate, it was a lie intentionally meant to deceive.

This goes to "character", a word Clark loves to use in reference to himself.

Like I said, all politicians lie.

Dick Cheney went on meet the Press in early 2003 and declared that "we believe Hussein has reconstituted nuclear weapons".  In May 2003 Donald Rumsfeld testified before Congress that he didn't believe that anyone within this administration had suggested that Hussein had nuclear weapons.  There's no way that Cheney would have that sort of info and a few months later Rumsfeld not have it.

Yep, Clark may have shot himself in the butt on this one.

That does NOT mean that lies equate to making mistakes.  A mistake means that you had the facts in ERROR (either by confusion or lack of ability to arrive at the correct answer); not that you knew the facts and chose to tell a lie.  That is NOT a mistake, rather is a choice to intentionally deceive.

Main Entry: 1mis·take
Pronunciation: m&-'stAk
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mis·took  /-'stuk/; mis·tak·en  /-'stA-k&n/; mis·tak·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse mistaka to take by mistake, from mis- + taka to take -- more at TAKE
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to blunder in the choice of <mistook her way in the dark>
2 a : to misunderstand the meaning or intention of : MISINTERPRET <don't mistake me, I mean exactly what I said> b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of
3 : to identify wrongly : confuse with another <I mistook him for his brother>
intransitive senses : to be wrong <you mistook when you thought I laughed at you -- Thomas Hardy>
- mis·tak·en·ly adverb
- mis·tak·er noun


Main Entry: in·ten·tion·al
Pronunciation: in-'tench-n&l, -'ten(t)-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1727
1 : done by intention or design : INTENDED <intentional damage>
2 a : of or relating to epistemological intention b : having external reference
synonym see VOLUNTARY
- in·ten·tion·al·i·ty  /-"ten(t)-sh&-'na-l&-tE/ noun
- in·ten·tion·al·ly  /in-'tench-n&-lE, -'ten(t)-sh&-n&l-E/ adverb

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? All politicians lie a lot, especially in enviroenments like the American political one, where spinning and polling play such a major part in politics. That's why we have to keep them on a short leash.

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.

Well, my first post said that if this is true, he's an idiot...

That he's a liar is to be expected, he's running for President, for crying out loud. Name a non-lying president ever...

JMF is loving his Drudge Report today.

everyone is but clark!

The GOP but also the dem rivals who will turn their fire on him next week.

I never said that people don’t lie.  We are all liars.

My first point was that lying couldn’t be considered a “mistake”, because it’s intentional.

---

My second point is regarding how it reveals Clark’s true character.

W is far from perfect, but I don’t remember him changing his positions on a major issue in order to run from president.  I remember Gore doing that, and that is the main reason why I can’t stand him.

If you were against the war – fine.  If you were for the war – fine.  But don’t lie about your position on an issue that is so important to many Americans.

And most of all, don’t insult the public’s intelligence by assuming that the American public is so dumb that it can’t compare Congressional testimony to a stated position during a campaign.

And NOT all politicians change their position simply to pander to the electorate – Zell Miller being a good example.  

I agree with you in principle. But politicians can get away with a lot. The PM of Sweden has done things which are so outrageous that one would think it impossible for him to remain, as has several of his ministers. They make for a lot of good jokes, but remain in power nonetheless.

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

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

Good point.

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?

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.

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.

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!

great point jmcfst, if that is your real name.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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?

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

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?

 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.

For Clark, a VERY long day.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Something tells me that, judging by their last president, the Democrats don't care that Clark is a liar.

Is his participation mostly introducing Drudge Report offerings?

No, he takes active part in moral discussions. You can check out the VERY, VERY, VERY LONG "gay marriage" thread on this board if you wish. I think he stated somewhere that he will not make predictions at this early stage, but I'm not sure about that.

Why so much interest in my predictions?

Why haven't you made one?

He stated somewhere that he thought it was too early. But I will let him answer in person... :)

I obviously chose the wrong topic when I went "Interesting reading Wesley Clark". I got angry with GWBFan's misleading post where NATO's operation in Balkans was questioned.

Well. If that information is true, Clark is idiot. But I don't believe that it is. Nobody in his position couldn't be so stupid. Or I like to believe so...

I
 

If that information is untrue, it would be very easy for Clark to come out with proof showing that.  He's had years to disprove this information and has yet to do so.  Until he does, no one cannot at least consider the possibility that the information is factual.

Do you always respond to a question with a question?

In jmfcst's defense, the question he responded to wasn't really a question, it was actually a statement with an erroroneous question mark at the end instead of a period.

Don't confuse mossy's pseudo-grammar issue with the facts. :)

jmfcst, You should register in the Fantasy Elections at the bottom of the forum. Republicans need your vote!

What is Pseudo-grammar?

It's exactly like your Pseudo-punctuation...but different.

Not lying.    This is a bogus issue, and one cannot blame the GOP stooping to making stuff up on Clark---his credentials are impecciable, and so are his relations with foreign heads of state.  He understands the art of working together with nations rather than isolation..........

Here is the actual response to this issue of changing:  With no links to the various "quotes" in the Drudge article, and the more I read it the more it looked like Lifted phrases--remember Clark is schooled in diplomacy and diplomatic language,  But you can see from the site below just how Clark felt from Feb 2003, up to the present.

Clark see the Bush administration as only "giving ultimatums" as a foreign policy---Clark said he'd "no sooner give up an ally than give up the 101st Airborn"


(url) http://clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

jmfcst:

You should have looked at the actual speech before taking Drudge at his word. See those ellipses on the transcript? They skip thosands of words from Clark's speech.

Here are some more quotes from Clark, from the SAME SPEECH, wich paint quite a different picture.

"The president and his national security team have got to deploy imagination, leverage and patience in working through the United Nations. In the near term, time is on our side and we should endeavor to use the United Nations if at all possible..."

"We have to work this problem in a way to gain worldwide legitimacy and understanding for the concerns that we rightly feel and for our leadership. This is what U.S. leadership in the world must be. We must bring others to share our views, not be too quick to rush to try to impose them even if we have the power to do so. I agree that there's a risk that the inspections would fail to provide evidence of the weapons program. They might fail, but I think we can deal with this problem as we move along, and I think the difficulties of dealing with this outcome are more than offset by the opportunities to gain allies, support and legitimacy in the campaign against Saddam Hussein."

"If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail, either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest possible coalition including our NATO allies and the North Atlantic Council if we're going to have to bring forces to bear. We should not be using force until the personnel, the organizations, the plans that will be required for post conflict Iraq, are prepared and ready."

"So, all that having been said, the option to use force must remain on the table. It should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted unless there's information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations."

[Source: http://www.mediawhoresonline.net/ar011904.htm]

Shorter Clark: "We might have to use force against Saddam, but it should be a last resort, after all dimplomatic means have failed, after we've gotten a coalition with NATO and established legitamacy, and only after we have got a plan for post-conflict Iraq. We're not at that point."

Not exactly gung-ho for war like Drudge paints him.

Had your statement actually been a question, I still would have answered it with the same question I gave in response.   There is nothing wrong with responding to a question with a question in order to promote logical thinking ("think before you ask") or to expose motive ("why are you asking").

John 18:33-34 Pilate then went back inside the palace, summoned Jesus and asked him, "Are you the king of the Jews?" 34"Is that your own idea," Jesus asked, "or did others talk to you about me?"

I told you he would pay no mind to the fantasy elections.

Clark's Testimony Exposes Drudge as Liar!


"January 16, 2004 -- 08:52 PM EDT // link // print)
A little more unfinished business on the Drudge/Clark smear.

"As I've already told you several times yesterday and today, Drudge got hold of some quotes from Clark's September 26th, 2002 congressional testimony and DISTORTED THEM OUT OF RECOGNITION BY HIGHLY SELECTIVE QUOTATION.  [Cherry-picking"]

In a subsequent post last night I quoted a passage from a piece which ran on the KnightRidder newswire. Here's the passage ...

"Clark's congressional testimony was further distorted Thursday by cyber-gossip columnist Matt Drudge, who quoted selected portions of Clark's testimony and *ADDED SENTENCES*!!!! that don't appear in the transcript on his Web site Thursday. Drudge didn't respond to an e-mail request for comment. "


(much more, can be read at:)
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_01_11.html#002415

So, jmfcst, you're going to use this forum to troll with garbage???

Well, I must say:  that is the first time I've been called a troll on this forum, though I have referred to others using that term.

I think you've got the wrong car McFly.  I only called foreigners "trolls".  And...no, not joking.  :)

I find it more than a little strange that a person would desire to go on a foreign web site to discuss another country's internal politics.  But this new version of the forum has sections for international politics, so things are better now.

Bingo.  I do NOT consider foreigners discussing US foreign policy as trolls, but anything else seems strange to me.  

Well I can see how a foreigner would want to discuss the general morality of abortion policy, because it's an issue for all human beings, though admittedly it's most controversial in this country.

You're quoting "Back to the Future" instead of the bible? I am shocked! :o

Are you referring to anyone in particular? I have discussed gay marriage with you, but I thought that the discussion of general politics would be open for everyone. It's not like the American forum members are gonna influence policy a lot more than the non-Americans... ;)

JMF exposing his xenophobic ways again...I remember this from the old board like it was yesterday.

I seem to recall JMF telling RP how Britain should run its health service. Which, in this context, makes him a hypocrite as well as a xenophobe.

Don't bother pointing out hypocriticism to Jmfcst.

Sorry to bash you JMF, but when I see you tee off on European members, I can't resist!

I don't recall that.  But in any case, having opinions about your neighbors is one thing, but going over and knocking on their doors in order to voice your opinion of their internal affairs is quite another.

I understand that, though I personally never really commented on how the US should manage its affairs. Still, it's not going to stop me from pursuing an interest in American politics.

Same goes for me!

"I do not consider European practices to be appalling, just foolish."
-Jmfcst, Oct. 24, 2003

Yes, our discussion was an in-house debate among Christians.  And obviously Leip likes an open forum...All I am saying is that I don't understand what prompt's a person to go mucking around in another country’s internal politics.  The last thing I care to know is what goes on in my neighbor's house.

If some foreigner has a moral objection to my politics, in that they find me going astray of sound moral doctrine, then I welcome their correction.  But apart from morality, there are other reasons why I like to live behind closed doors.  Likewise, there are reasons for America maintaining its own sovereignty.  

But there is no need for me to dissect why non-citizens care about internal US policy.  Even though I think it strange people do such things, I’m not curious enough to want to know the reasons behind their actions.

And your point?  I may consider my neighbor foolish, but I'm not going to give him a call to voice my opinion.

OK, then I wont tell you. ;)

Actually, I throw many stolen "lines" into my postings, but few pick up on it.  One of the funniest instances is when I mentioned migrendel's "highbrow Marxist ways".  He didn't know it was a lyric from the band White Town, but he admitted the term described him well.

But I usually give scripture proper credit when I quote from it.

Yes, I know you do, it's funny with quotes, I try to use them  occasionally myself.

If ever there was a time for citizens of other countries to take an interest in U.S. politics, voice their opinions, it is now.  

We are in the same swimming pool.  The floating rope does not protect those on one side of the rope, from someone who insists on urinating on their side.

The world has nearly as much at stake as do Americans.

I remember that.  It really wasn't relavant to discussion at the time, however.

You sound like one of those who cried for days in 1983 after watching "The Day After".

Plonk.