Piano World Home Page Forums Restricted and Archives The Coffee Room Wesley Clark

1. I don't dislike liberals. I dislike liberalism. There is a huge difference. I also dislike closed minded mental midgets. Not all liberals are closed minded mental midgets, but most of the time, that's where I find them.
2. I don't think all liberals are pacifist sissies. I think all pacifists are sissies, as well as closed minded mental midgets.
3. So what if Clark has admitted to being a liberal. He is also breaking his neck trying to pretend he is a "moderate", whatever the heck *that* is.
4. I can attack a 4 star general for being a pacifist sissy if he is being a pacifist sissy.
5. I didn't paint Clark as anything. I quoted an article in which a British General who worked with him painted him as such.

Fortunately, *I* am able to remember when Clark had to be put on a short leash for being a media hound and screwing up the military operation in his selfish desire for self promotion. *I* am able to remember when the issue of him wanting to drop troops onto the airport tarmac was all over the news. And *I* have watched the man test the wind for a very long time trying to decide which party he would claim he was a member of. For a very long time he wouldn't say which party he was in, because he was checking to see which party would help him the most. Now he's pretending to be a "moderate".

In other words Tony, he's a political whore who's only motivation is advancing his own self interests. Which, come to think of it..... proves he is a Democrat politician, doesn't it Tony?

Read today:

In a little-noticed interview with Fortune magazine last week, presidential front-runner Gen. Wesley Clark defended Saddam Hussein against charges that he was engaged in crimes against his own people at the time the Iraq war started, contending instead that the Iraqi dictator should have gotten a pass because his atrocities took place 10 years ago.

Asked why it was right for President Clinton to use military force to halt Slobodan Milosevic's crimes against humanity in Kosovo, but not for President Bush to do the same thing against Saddam, Clark said that in Iraq, "The imminence of stopping a guy from committing a crime in progress - it wasn't there."

"In Kosovo you had ethnic cleansing actually unfolding, and we had intervened to stop it," the ex-NATO commander insisted, without commenting on the torture chambers, rape rooms and mass graves discovered in Iraq by coalition forces.

Instead, the Democratic front-runner suggested that the Iraqi dictator deserved a pass by outlining what Fortune described as Clark's "Statute of Limitations for Genocidal Thugs."

And this guy wants to be President? He should take a cue from MacArthur and "just fade away".
Perhaps to a quiet fishing cottage (along with his buddy Ret. Canadian Forces General Lewis MacKenzie) far away from media would be best for everyone. This guy is a real piece of work.

Like I said, he's running on one headlight. :p

ONly one headlight? After reading that I think he's driving with park brake brake engaged and no lights.

To quote myself, "Failed general against Failed President. Just another day in the neighborhood."

I don't get it Shantinik, Clark could face Bush, not Clinton.

I'm no great Clark fan as I'm learning more about him, but I'm finding it very amusing watching the "conservatives" here getting "all lathered up" (to borrow that term from one of youse guys) at the prospect of a ballsy 4-star, GD-liberal general giving Bush & Co a run for their money. Aint' politics fun?

I calls it as I sees it (and, as anyone around here will tell you, I ain't no Clinton fan.)

"Lathered Up", hardly. This guy is in the midst of stretching his mouth wider so that he can put both feet in it. I'm amused at liberals who actually think this guy shares their views. This guy jumps from one idea/excuse to another depending on the situation. He is a total amateur and will be forgotten by Christmas.

We'll see. As said, I'm not enamored of him myself, but feet in mouth or not, most anything would beat what we have now, and therein (IMO) lies the excitement of most "liberals." (God how I hate these terms - everything has to be so B&W!!!!)

As KathyK so eloquently put it: Which is why you might as well get used to Bush. He has the Republican base sewed up. And as one person said on National Communistic Radio (NPR) this morning, "I may not like him a lot, but he's the best of the bunch".

Vote will be about 55/45, and the Dems will win about 10 or 12 states, including California.

FYI liberals -

Confused Clark Calls Retreat On Hawk Talk
From The New York Post

By Deborah Orin
9/20/03

In a disastrous debut, Gen. Wesley Clark yesterday flip-flopped back and forth on the Iraq war … A day after Clark raised eyebrows by saying he'd "probably" have voted for the war … the rookie campaigner did a complete about-face …

"Let's make one thing real clear - I would never have voted for this war. …" the retired four-star general … insisted yesterday. …

On Thursday, Clark raised eyebrows by telling reporters on his campaign plane about the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq: "I probably would have voted for it." …

But in same interview … he wasn't clear, saying … "I don't know whether I would have or not. I've said it both ways."

In fact, he had so much trouble sorting out his position that he called out … to press secretary Mary Jacoby, yelling: "Mary, help!" …

GOP strategist Rich Galen said: "He's not ready for prime time, he's not ready to be president. … In a debate, any freshman congressman could kick his four-star butt back to Arkansas." …

[Clark] also claimed he became a Democrat after listening to Bill Clinton's early campaign speeches - but that was in 1992. Republicans gleefully noted that in 2001, he spoke to a GOP party dinner and registered as an independent. …

Could you possibly doctor that article any more?

New York Post...ahahahahahahahahaha!

Here ya go Brendan...

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/40414.htm

Not much substance taken out so... your point is?

The Pristina airport episode bothers me, and I am also troubled by another incident reported in a NY Times profile yesterday: Clark ignored advice from the State Department in order to meet Ratko Mladic face to face, and apparently photos were taken showing Clark and Mladic being palsy-walsy and yukking it up by swapping uniform caps for the photos.

Maybe that's not as bad as Reagan agreeing to visit an SS cemetary in Germany, but it's right up there.

Karl Rove must be well on his way to ulcers.

"WASHINGTON - Democrat Wesley Clark, in the presidential race for less than a week, is tied with President Bush (news - web sites) in a head-to-head matchup, according to a poll that shows several Democratic candidates strongly challenging the Republican incumbent. Clark, a retired Army general, garnered 49 percent support to Bush's 46 percent, which is essentially a tie given the poll's margin of error. The CNN-USA Today-Gallup poll was conducted Sept. 19-21, beginning two days after Clark announced he would become the 10th Democratic candidate for the party's nomination.
Several other Democrats who have been in the race for months also were close to Bush in direct matchups. Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts and Sen. Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) of Connecticut also were tied with the president, while Bush held a slight lead over former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (news - web sites) and Rep. Dick Gephardt (news - web sites) of Missouri. In the head-to-head confrontations, it was Kerry at 48 percent to Bush's 47 percent; and Bush's 48 percent to Lieberman's 47 percent. Bush held a slight lead over Dean, 49-45 percent, and had a similar advantage over Gephardt. Poll

I'd thought I'd post the link, since it might no show up on the Drudgereport web-link thing.

In fact, things look promising all around.
More fun with Polls


It's gonna be fun

Ya know. I'm not so sure about that. I mentioned in a few posts back about my parents, both old-school republicans, who have come to have a strong dislike of Bush and plan to sit out the 2004 election. I think they're not alone.. I have over the past weeks heard more grumbling about Bush from some of my republican acquaintances and friends. I suppose in the end they may end up supporting him. But I'm not so sure. Someone recently sent me this link. Moderate Republicans The "Dreaming of Pat" commentary resonates. Curious stuff --at least to me.

-N

I'm noticing the same thing.

I live in a hotbed of Republicanism (Orange County, CA) but a remarkable number of former Bush supporters around here aren't real happy with the man. They've been lied to, and they don't like it. A lot of them are Fundamentalist, and their disappointment has turned in to rightous indignation - they've been done in by one of their own.

What will they do come election time? Hard to say. It's a closed Primary here, so Bush is a shoe-in as far as that goes. Is this a national trend? Could be - the poll numbers are dropping steadily. Could make for a very interesting - and possibly surprising - Presidential election in '04.

What will really be interesting is to see if the Republicans will pull out the big gun if it looks like they are going to go down in flames. Watch for an invasion of one of the smaller Islamic countries or perhaps even Iran sometime in September/October 04.

If it happens, remember you heard it here first on the Piano Forum.

Why? Do you get paid a commssion if it actually happens?
:p