SF: Wes Clark still thinking about running

Do you really think that is the accepted facts on the way the world viewed what happened during the Bosnian war?
 
Really...

Desh said:
Islam Is Not The Enemy!
Click to expand...


There are always two sides to every story..I for one read both sides before making a judgement..this is the conservative way...unlike liberals who only read one side! and agree if it fits their agenda...enough said!
 
Battleborne said:
Do you even know what it is you are arguing?...Wiki is a joke...anyone can edit anything anyone says about any topic...try again!
Click to expand...


Wiki is updated by all , its facts are checked.

Now once in a while someone slips in bullshit dishonestly.

This is what makes the news and then it is changed immediately.

There is no other way to come up with a completely balenced sight.

Now you are welcome to debunk anything on the site with fact if you can rember what fact is after lapping up all the bullshit sites you post as referances.
 
blackascoal said:
Wesley Clark .. please go away.

He hasn't stepped out or distinguished himself since his last ill-fated run when he at least had some chance.

On Iraq he has switched back and forth between an antiwar stance to celebrating the U.S. "victory" and praising Bush and Blair.

On Saddam and WMD, Clark said, "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

WHAT?

He also said the Saddam has WMD "Absolutely" and "those weapons will be found."

After the fall of Baghdad, Clark said, "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions."

WHAT?

Clark predicted that after the war, "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt." "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."

WHAT? WHAT? WHAT?

He also had this to say, "The campaign in Iraq illustrates the continuing progress of military technology and tactics, but if there is a single overriding lesson it must be this: American military power, especially when buttressed by Britain's, is virtually unchallengeable today. Take us on? Don't try! And that's not hubris, it's just plain fact."

WHAT?

This is a man who talks glowingly of "great military victories" and who seems to think someone is calling his name whenever there's a presidential election.

Perhaps someone can explain WHY America needs Wesley Clark because I connot think of a single reason why we should elect a prowar/antiwar general who didn't have the intelligence to see through the fraud of Iraq.
Click to expand...

Taking random quotes from people and typing "WHAT?" after each one is generally considered a poor debate tactic.
 
Battleborne said:
Do you even know what it is you are arguing?...Wiki is a joke...anyone can edit anything anyone says about any topic...try again!
Click to expand...

Wikipedia generally has about 10% more errors than Encyclopaedia Brittanica. And Encyclopeadia Brittanica has 1 per every 10 articles or so. Wikipedia is also free, whereas the aformentioned encyclopeadia isn't. I insure you, Wikipedia is much smarter than your dumbass. If you make any bad edits they're taken out either by the editors or by a passerby within MINUTES.
 
Yes "Dumbass"

Watermark said:
Wikipedia generally has about 10% more errors than Encyclopaedia Brittanica. And Encyclopeadia Brittanica has 1 per every 10 articles or so. Wikipedia is also free, whereas the aformentioned encyclopeadia isn't. I insure you, Wikipedia is much smarter than your dumbass. If you make any bad edits they're taken out either by the editors or by a passerby within MINUTES.
Click to expand...


You just made my point...like I said earlier...wiki can be edited by anyone on any topic! :FootMouth: And you really believe the staff editors catch every edit out of millions per day??? Who is the "dumbass" Now???
 
Cypress said:
First, Wes Clark recognized this war was a mistake, before John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, Bill Richardson, or Joe Biden.

Compared to the 2004 Dem presidential candidates, he was way ahead of all of them, except Howard Dean...and, I guess Al Sharpton.

Second, with all due respect, I'm suspicious of the quotes you provide. For example, you posted the sentence:

"Liberation is at hand. Liberation — the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions. "

So I checked google. This one sentence, is taken completely out of context, the way you posted it.

In the full article that contains that quote, Wes Clark warns that this "ain't over yet". Celebrating "victory" could be premature, and he goes on to say that America's image lies in tatters because of this war. Taken as a whole, this piece Clark wrote, was a cautionary tale against celebrating premature victory, and for bemoaning the loss of american prestige and moral authority as a result of the war:

He's rightly proud of the performance of the men and women of the military who went in and took bagdad. Why not be proud of them? Clark is a career military man, who's known as a great advocate for the enlisted personal. But, this piece war far more prescient, and cautionary than the way you presented. And since this is a piece from April 10, 2003, it actually makes Clark look remarkably prescient - in comparison to many others. Recall most Americans were high fiving each other, and taking a victory lap in early April 2003.

Since this one quote was presented completely out of context, it makes me suspicious of the other quotes you provide.

And I mean that respectfully. I'm sure you just pulled the quotes off some website, that didn't provide the whole speech or context.
Click to expand...

I take your critcisms respectfully my brother, but I don't think anything was taken out of context. Clark has been on both sides of the fence. Although he may have recognized the war was a mistake, he himself said he probably would have voted for its authorization.

It's true that Clark's worldview appeared a little shaky 24 hours into his candidacy. Asked on September 18, 2003, if he would have voted for the October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, the ostensibly antiwar general equivocated: "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question. ... I don't know if I would have or not." That quote, combined with subsequent claims that he would never have voted for the resolution, led to a minor media frenzy, on which Clark's rivals were quick to capitalize. "He took six different positions on whether going to war was the right idea," Joe Lieberman charged at one debate.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040119&s=scoblic011904

Perhaps you don't remember why Clark fell out of favor at his last attempt, but it was because he has been all over the place on the question of Iraq, pre-emptive war, and muscular militarism.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1839

Clark's Changing Tune on Iraq
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0339,schanberg,47244,1.html

Perhaps you should review this discussion of Clark on Democracy Now when he was running in 2004.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/1755219

The General Who Would be President
http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman09102003.html

Everybody's an "antiwar" candidate today and democrats and progressives jump on anything that remotely smells antiwar. Clark does not have a history that I would trust.
 
Watermark said:
Taking random quotes from people and typing "WHAT?" after each one is generally considered a poor debate tactic.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with you believing that, but "WHAT?" was my expression of disbelief in the previously mentioned quote.

You are free to express any opinion of the quote you choose and I won't spend ANY time arguing your expression, but instead argue the merits or lack thereof in the quote.

THAT, in my opinion, is a proper debate tactic.
 
blackascoal said:
I take your critcisms respectfully my brother, but I don't think anything was taken out of context. Clark has been on both sides of the fence. Although he may have recognized the war was a mistake, he himself said he probably would have voted for its authorization.

It's true that Clark's worldview appeared a little shaky 24 hours into his candidacy. Asked on September 18, 2003, if he would have voted for the October 2002 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, the ostensibly antiwar general equivocated: "At the time, I probably would have voted for it, but I think that's too simple a question. ... I don't know if I would have or not." That quote, combined with subsequent claims that he would never have voted for the resolution, led to a minor media frenzy, on which Clark's rivals were quick to capitalize. "He took six different positions on whether going to war was the right idea," Joe Lieberman charged at one debate.
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040119&s=scoblic011904

Perhaps you don't remember why Clark fell out of favor at his last attempt, but it was because he has been all over the place on the question of Iraq, pre-emptive war, and muscular militarism.

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Wesley Clark: The New Anti-War Candidate?
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1839

Clark's Changing Tune on Iraq
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0339,schanberg,47244,1.html

Perhaps you should review this discussion of Clark on Democracy Now when he was running in 2004.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/09/18/1755219

The General Who Would be President
http://www.counterpunch.org/grossman09102003.html

Everybody's an "antiwar" candidate today and democrats and progressives jump on anything that remotely smells antiwar. Clark does not have a history that I would trust.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. But, I don't need to read what leftists think about General Clark's words. I can, and have, read many of General Clarks pieces, and seen him talk enough to make up my own mind.

For me, the bottom line is this: If Wes Clark had been president in 2003, We wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

The only other people you can say that about in national politics in 2003, were Howard Dean, Al Gore, Sharpton, and a handfull of others on the national scene.

To me, that says a lot. I personally celebrate those who would have kept us out of war. I don't think Clark is perfect. But, for the defining moment and issue of our time, he was fundamentally on the right side. I trust his judgement, more than at least 50% of the Democrats in the senate. Maybe more than 50%.
 
Cypress said:
Fair enough. But, I don't need to read what leftists think about General Clark's words. I can, and have, read many of General Clarks pieces, and seen him talk enough to make up my own mind.
Click to expand...

YOU may not need to read his words but there are others here who may, and his words have nothing whatsoever to do "leftists", "rightists", or anything in between. They are his words and they contributed heavily to why he didn't find much traction that last time he ran.

For me, the bottom line is this: If Wes Clark had been president in 2003, We wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

The only other people you can say that about in national politics in 2003, were Howard Dean, Al Gore, Sharpton, and a handfull of others on the national scene.
Click to expand...

If ANYONE other than Bush had been president we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. The invasion of Iraq was a neocon production from the beginning. There were a 133 politicians who voted against it, a great many more who were cowered into it, and almost no one would have considered the invasion of Iraq as a response to 9/11, including a lot of republicans.

No one knows, including Clark it seems, if he would have even been one of the 133.

To me, that says a lot. I personally celebrate those who would have kept us out of war. I don't think Clark is perfect. But, for the defining moment and issue of our time, he was fundamentally on the right side. I trust his judgement, more than at least 50% of the Democrats in the senate. Maybe more than 50%.
Click to expand...

YOU may trust his judgement but I do not, including a lot more than 50% of democrats. Clark is all over the place on war including loving to boast about it with statements like "Don't try it", which sounds eerily simular to "Bring it on."
 
blackascoal said:
I have no problem with you believing that, but "WHAT?" was my expression of disbelief in the previously mentioned quote.

You are free to express any opinion of the quote you choose and I won't spend ANY time arguing your expression, but instead argue the merits or lack thereof in the quote.

THAT, in my opinion, is a proper debate tactic.
Click to expand...

WHAT?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top