Discuss.
Printable View
Discuss.
??
who will you vote for? or not vote at all?
HAVENT EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IT...
Dean or Kerry wins, Gephardt drops out giving support to Edwards. The big 4 become Kerry, Edwards, Dean, Clark. In New Hampshire, Clark's campaigning alone wins him the victory. Clark overtakes Dean nationally and continues on to win the nomination and the presidency. That's how I see it. I might be wrong, but hey.
Clark is a GIFT for the democratic party.
Sounds good. Hope it happens. I think the field will be narrowed significantly after Iowa down to 5 or 6.
Big deal. Who's next in line to get thumped by W? Probably Dean, which would be suicide, but then the Democrats haven't been very smart campaigners over the last 25 years, with the sole exception of Bill Clinton.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Avtually it is a pretty big deal condidering the ramifications it could have on this country, its history and the world.Quote:
Originally posted by sinner:
Big deal. Who's next in line to get thumped by W? Probably Dean, which would be suicide, but then the Democrats haven't been very smart campaigners over the last 25 years, with the sole exception of Bill Clinton.
And no Dean won't win Iowa.
EVery election I find myself wondering why so much weight is given to a bunch of people in Iowa and New Hampshire. Bush was smart he chose to go for the electoral college vote (outmoded though it is) as opposed to the popular vote and won last time. And if Al Gore, fresh from 8 years with Clinton The Wonder Shlong couldn't beat him , how the hell are any of these guys going to? none of them are close to being considered a household name, and as we saw with Bush, a name people know is huge.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Clark can win, imagine a hugely successful general who dedicated over 30 years of his life to fighting for the country on the same stage as W the deserter. No US soldiers died when Clinton lied, and Wes Clark had a lot to do with that. Clark is strong on the issues, takes away Smirk's "foreign policy" card, and looks like a winner. Clark will bring the smirking chimp bastard to his knees and will bring hope back to the working family. Sinner, don't let Rivertucky get to you, not the whole country is a redneck wasteland, only about half.Quote:
Originally posted by sinner:
Big deal. Who's next in line to get thumped by W? Probably Dean, which would be suicide, but then the Democrats haven't been very smart campaigners over the last 25 years, with the sole exception of Bill Clinton.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Wow this sentence really caught my eye.Quote:
Originally posted by sinner:
Bush was smart he chose to go for the electoral college vote (outmoded though it is) as opposed to the popular vote and won last time.
"Bush was smart"
No, Rove is the smart one, Bush choked on a pretzel, fell off of a segway, got drunk, and decided to blow up a country.
"won last time"
That monkey didn't win anything, he was selected by Satan... I mean Katherine Harris,Jeb, and the supreme court elected by Reagan and his daddy. He is an illegitimate unelected fraud.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Hey bud this is a primary. You can't win the electoral college if you don't get your party's nomination.Quote:
Originally posted by sinner:
EVery election I find myself wondering why so much weight is given to a bunch of people in Iowa and New Hampshire. Bush was smart he chose to go for the electoral college vote (outmoded though it is) as opposed to the popular vote and won last time.
George W was a cheerleader. I mean, what more needs to be said?!? He is also a giant puss who went AWOL from the reserves. He is a liar, and a horrible leader. I can't wait to vote against him again. Asshole. That is all.
Jesus(I hate Bush, he's a liar)
[img]graemlins/cry.gif[/img]
Well, perhaps I phrased that wrong. Bush was smart in selecting the people who ran his campaign.
And, you know 3 years ago, your bitter rantings about how Bush hijacked the country wouldnt have fallen on deaf ears, but its been an entire term and I wish people would just get over it. You don't have one of those "Re-elect Gore in 2004" stickers do you? [img]wink.gif[/img] Also, let mesay I am not a Bush fan, I voted for McCain, who I thought had alot of good ideas, but just wasn't going to compromise enough to win. Bush will win again because he or the people around him seem to realize campaigning is not about the issues, which never no matter who is in office nothing ever seems to change on most major issues, but it is about the image that he can feed to the VOTING public. An awful lot of people don't vote, and alot of uneducated people DO vote, and you can win alot of states by catering to the lowest common denominator. If more people in our (I shudder to use this word) demographic voted, maybe things would be different. As it is, things are the way they are. I will not be voting for Bush this time either, but I can't see yet who is worth my vote. A vote is precious and needs to be earned by actions not words. The very idea that someone would WANT to run for President still disturbs me, what could possibly attract someone to that thankless job. Even some of our greatest presidents were hardly universally liked. It seems to be all about approval ratings nowadays as if Nielsen is running the White House. I'm ranting now, I'll have to stop my thoughts are running on.
<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ January 19, 2004 11:13 PM: Message edited by: sinner ]</font>
http://www.iownjoo.com/freeimghost/b...eeds-food3.jpg
<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ January 19, 2004 11:39 PM: Message edited by: sinner ]</font>
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Three years ago my "bitter rantings" and the bitter rantings of thousands of others fell on deaf ears because the boy king is never held accountable for anything. The media whores will go ahead and spin everything that the fucker does. Weapons of mass destructions, those don't matter, many children left behind, it's all good. I dare you to find a single guy on the big 3 MSNBC, FAUX, or CNN that has held Bush accountable, please. The bastard never worked a day in his life and has failed at every step of the way. As for the sticker, I like my big black and white, RECALL BUSH well enough. I think it gets the point across quite nicely.Quote:
Originally posted by sinner:
And, you know 3 years ago, your bitter rantings about how Bush hijacked the country wouldnt have fallen on deaf ears, but its been an entire term and I wish people would just get over it. You don't have one of those "Re-elect Gore in 2004" stickers do you? [img]wink.gif[/img]
<font color="#FFFF00"><font size="1">[ January 19, 2004 11:13 PM: Message edited by: sinner ]</font></font>
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">,Quote:
Originally posted by two drink minimum:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana, arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Originally posted by sinner:
Bush was smart he chose to go for the electoral college vote (outmoded though it is) as opposed to the popular vote and won last time.
Jeb, and the supreme court elected by Reagan and his daddy. He is an illegitimate unelected fraud.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana, arial">1) Supreme court justices are appointed not elected.
2) Of the 4 voices of dissent in the Supreme Court, 2 were Republican appointed Justices.
3) Jeb really had nothing to do with tampering with votes in a democrat held district.
4) Al Gore couldn't win his own state. [img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]
5) I thought Joe Lieberman was just a Republican in disguise.
Now Kathline Harris on the other hand is a complete fraud.
Also like to point out that every president since Carter (except Reagan) was from the South.
Yeah and go Clark.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">hahaQuote:
Originally posted by two drink minimum:
Dude, I called the hotline but it's a weird phone sex thing. Extra Person, please explain!
Are you actually suggesting that the mainstream media are primarily right wing? That is possibly the most laughable statement ever. The media as a whole have always had liberal leanings, while the conservatives are limited to a few loudmouths like Hannity and Limbaugh on the radio. Just because the right wingers scream louder doesnt mean there are more of them.
Fuck Gore, that spineless walking erection. I didn't like Bush either. But I think Bush will get re-elected. Somewhere between now and election I bet Bush finds or kills Osama Bin Laden or we find WMD in Iraq, wether they were there or not I bet some turn up some how. Or god forbid, another unspeakable tragedy occurs on U.S. soil. After 9/11 the people were unified and almost completely behind Bush. I think Bush will go 4 more years no matter what it costs.
That's just it. We've entered another era of elections based upon appearance and character not on how and if they will deal with the political issues of the day.
I think you are right on many of your points sinner. However I still believe that the presidency was stolen from Gore. I also want to say that I supported neither as a good candidate, I was right about Bush, but we may not ever get a chance to see how Gore would run things.
Dude, I called the hotline but it's a weird phone sex thing. Extra Person, please explain!
Guys, I've stayed out of this because it's a sticky and volatile subject. I hate Bush and everything he stands for. Sinner your comment about the media intrigued me. The mainstream media is not slanted to the liberal side any longer. Go to www.commondreams.org and see how the content compares or next time you're at the newstand pick up an issue of Mother Jones. I think you'd be surprised, if not outraged.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">,Quote:
Originally posted by fag_johnson:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana, arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Originally posted by two drink minimum:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana, arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Originally posted by sinner:
Bush was smart he chose to go for the electoral college vote (outmoded though it is) as opposed to the popular vote and won last time.
Jeb, and the supreme court elected by Reagan and his daddy. He is an illegitimate unelected fraud.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana, arial">1) Supreme court justices are appointed not elected.
2) Of the 4 voices of dissent in the Supreme Court, 2 were Republican appointed Justices.
3) Jeb really had nothing to do with tampering with votes in a democrat held district.
4) Al Gore couldn't win his own state. [img]graemlins/thumbs_down.gif[/img]
5) I thought Joe Lieberman was just a Republican in disguise.
Now Kathline Harris on the other hand is a complete fraud.
Also like to point out that every president since Carter (except Reagan) was from the South.
Yeah and go Clark.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Dreadfully sorry I used elected instead of appointed, elected was on my mind because the subject was election. As for the the two justices, it's great that two Republicans wanted to keep elections fair, but it still doesn't change that Reagan and Bush the elected's buddies, not the people, selected Bush.
I'm not sure exactly what you are saying about Jeb, but I think helping Harris wipe blacks and democrats with similar names to felons off the voting roles is cheating.
Al Gore couldn't win his own state. No shit, Gore was a softie. He turned down support from Clinton and was eaten alive by the media calling him a robot, and making fun of his "inventing the internet." I wouldn't be on this computer right now if it weren't for Gore, he pushed for the internet to be made available for the public and here it is.
And yes Lieberman is a Bush apologist.
Sinner, you have been completely brainwashed. I have no idea how you can watch an hour of any 24 hours news channel and come away thinking it was liberal slanted.
My buddy wrote this, perhaps you can refute it.
The Myth of the "liberal" media
Let's do a "what if" so I can make a point. I think it's a good one.
I think it's so good, I'd like to hear from anyone who disagrees.
What if a show like Dateline did a "hatchet job" on George W. Bush?
It wouldn't have to really be a hatchet job, but any honest appraisal of that idiot's
qualifications would prove he's a non-thinking rich man's boy - and that's all.
But what would happen if Dateline did an unflattering portrait of Bush?
I'll tell you what would happen:
The vulgar Pigboy would spend at least three hours saying it wasn't true
and he'd offer hours of rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill O'Reilly would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sean Hannity would walk all over Alan Colmes for an hour that night,
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Eva Von Zahn would spend at least an hour that night saying it wasn't true
and she'd offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
The Beltway Boys would spend at least an hour that night saying it
wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Brit Hume and Tony Snow would spend at least an hour on Sunday
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Juan Williams and Mara Liason would spend their entire allotted time
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John McLaughlin would spend at least an hour on his syndicated show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Chris the Screamer would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
G. Gordon Liddy would spend at least three hours on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Laura the Whore would spend at least an hour on her radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Michael Medved would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Sam and Cokie would spend at least an hour on This Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
George (Judas Maximus) Steffi and George (dumb as a chimp) Will
would spend their entire allotted time swearing that it wasn't true.
Bob Scheiffer would spend at least an hour on Face the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Tim the Catholic would spend at least an hour on Meet the Whore
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
John Hockenberry would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Ollie North would spend at least an hour on his radio show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Robert Novak would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Paul Weyrich would spend at least an hour on his cable TV show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Still with me? We're close to the end...
BSNBC's Brian Williams would spend at least an hour on his show
saying it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Wolf the Whore would spend at least an hour on his show saying
it wasn't true and offer rebuttal as to why Dateline was lying.
Bill Schneider and Candy Crowley would do an hour special on CCN
(Clinton Cock Network) saying it wasn't true, and offering rebuttal.
John Stossel would have a special on ABC: Is lying OK for liberals?
Then Howie Kurtz would spend 30 minutes on Reliable Sources asking
if the media wasn't being too hard on a developmently-disabled child.
Ann Coulter would write a book condemning Dateline.
Laura Ingraham would write a book condemning Dateline.
Peggy Noonan would write a book condemning Dateline.
Andrew Sullivan would write a book condemning Dateline.
William Safire would write a book condemning Dateline.
OK, we're going to call the above "Exhibit A."
Now, everyone on that list has done at least a dozen hit pieces on Clinton.
My question is, Where is "Exhibit B?"
When those 38 people attack Clinton and his cock, who does the rebuttal?
There is no "Exhibit B," because there are so few liberal voices on television.
The closest you can get is Eleanor on McLaughlin or Geraldo, but there is barely
a liberal whisper on television, even though there are DOZENS of right-wing,
Smirk-apologist shows whose livelyhood is lying about liberals.
Thank you for your concern, but no my brain is just fine at the moment aside from the Guinness.
I don't think you mentioned the largest liberal media TV outlet of all, CNN. Not so much today as in years past but CNN has always been left slanted in it's reporting, or should I say commentary. Because that is essentially what we have today on TV and radio especially, there is no more "reporting." Bias from both sides has always been there, but only with the advent of 24 hour cable news channels has it been available to see 24/7. Bias is when you see 10 seconds of a Rodney King video tape. Bias is when you see pictures of 4 or 5 candidates for city council/senate/congress and one of them has bad hair or their mouth open or is not smiling, or is the only one smiling. It was not, until recently with the disastrous last year or 2 that Clinton had personally, has criticism of the President reached an all time high. It is at the point now when it matters not who is in office, or who is running, or what their "policies" are. It only matters how they appear to be. And the media is by far the greatest influence when it comes to how we perceive someone.
The biggest bias by far can be readily seen in any local paper or national magazine, where it's owner/parent company determines what we will read and how stories will be written/edited, what pictures will be used. Did we ever read anything bad about the AOL/Time Warner merger? I wonder why. Did we ever read anything bad or see any stories or hear any sound bites condemning Clinton and his policies? Not until it came out that he was getting hummers in the Oval Office. We were all fascinated by that, because apprently noone in Congress let alone the American public has EVER Had one, so of course that was a story. Any time someone famous gets blown it makes news. NOT THAT THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THAT [img]smile.gif[/img] . Ordinarily, I am in favor of any guy who is able to get his dong huffed. But my tax dollars payed for it. They payed for the cigar and the chair he sat in. I was not in favor of the stupid waste of time that was the impeachment attempt, but the guy was the media darling president of all time.
By the way, Colmes is there for Hannity to walk over, it's part of the show, and that what most of those "shows" that pass for news are. They are platforms for their hosts to forward their personal agendas. I am positive if an egomaniacal left wing asshole was out there and could get a show, it'd be on right now because the bottom line is ratings, and like it or not, those guys like Limbaugh the windbag, and O'Reilly who makes me ashamed to say I share a common nationality with, get ratings, therefore they will continue to be on until they don't get ratings. It doesn't matter what I like it matters what the advertisers say and how much they can pay for 30 second spots on Larry King or Geraldo, or Hannity and Colmes.
Another thing is and I think we can both agree on this is that the consolidation through mergers and takeovers of different media outlets is altogether bad because it shrinks and condenses everything we see and hear and read into a few select viewpoints/songs/shows. It is something that should not be allowed to happen, it started under Clinton and is continuing under Bush. More companies/individual outlets = more viewpoints and to help educate the uneducated that is always better.
<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ January 21, 2004 03:30 AM: Message edited by: sinner ]</font>
2 drinks, is that a Bartcop piece?
Here's my rebuttal.
Exhibit A
Do you think conservatives were really lining up to watch MTV's A History of Homosexuality. Or Queer Eye,Will and Grace or any other program that promotes homosexuality. Probably not
Exhibit B
Now that I know that you can name the entire Fox News crew, I feel really enlightened. Fox News was created as counter programming to CNN and MSNBC. Most conservatives I know showed as much contempt as you do towards Bush at cable news networks, until Fox came along. What about James Carville. There's one of CNN's best and brightest. Don't try to tell me he's a republican in disguise either because he was Clinton senior political analyst and helped get him elected. His good buddy Begala is also on CNN with him. The consulting firm Carville and Begala is what got Clinton elected. Or maybe Tavis Smiley. Maybe Jeffrey Toobin, author of the book "A Vast Conspiracy : The Real Story of the Sex Scandal That Nearly Brought Down a President" and another CNN man. What about MSNBC's man, the speechwriter for President Carter. He like to play hardball.
Exhibit C
If all the people that have been doing all these hit pieces on Clinton have really brainwashed people, why is it that at the end of his term he was ranked above the Pope in a poll of most admirable people?
Exhibit D
The media includes more than just radio and TV. Conservatives had long had control over the radio waves. The media also includes the Internet, films, music,literature and newspapers. Give move some examples of a good conservative film or a song, outside of the country genre, that is ultra-conservative. Look at the front of your local newspaper. The LA Times had breaking news to report two days before the recall election: that a few women claim yet have no proof that Arnold harassed them. Why didn't they come forward anytime in the past 25 years, or even at the start of the campaign. The answer to that question is fairly obvious. 3 days before the presidential election in 2000, the news media had another breaking story to report, George Bush was charged with a DUI in Maine 20 years ago. Maybe he should have sealed all his records like Dean. How about the amazing claim by a Texas women that George Bush drugged her, bound her, and raped her, then proceeded to rap the woman's husband in a similar fashion. Clearly sounds like a hit job to me.
Here's some great literature:
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right
Bushwhacked : Life in George W. Bush's America
Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth
Shrub : The Short but Happy Political Life of George W. Bush
The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception
The Hunting of the President : The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton
Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush's War on Iraq
<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ January 21, 2004 03:15 PM: Message edited by: fag_johnson ]</font>
I wasn't going to mention the LA Times by name but thank you for doing it for me FJ.
Exhibit A
I bet that those shows featuring gay people were engineered by Conservatives or at least Conservatives own the channel playing them. Anyway they can get richer, sure it's going against their basic beliefs, but so is blowing people up. Money is God.
Exhibit B
Many of those people were not Fox News. Plus, let's just say CNN is liberal. It's definitely not liberal enough to warrant Fox News being its opposite. If CNN is so damn liberal why don't they come out condemning the war, why don't they say that Bush is illegitimate? They won't. Next, Crossfire, a great show, features not only democrats Carville and Begala, but also Novak and Carlson. It's a real left right show, they both get equal time. I don't think Carville and Begala alone got Clinton elected, c'mon, they were speech writers and supporters, but Clinton had to do the work also. I'm really not familar with Tavis, and I am assuming the majority of America isn't either.
Me: Hey Joe American!
Joe: What you want?
Me: Do you know who Tavis Smiley and Jeffrey Toobin are?
Joe: Are they those guys on the Philadelphia eagles?
Me: Do you know Rush and Bill O'reilly?
Joe: Of course.
(Warning: Not actual discussion)
Okay MSNBC Hardball Chris Matthews. You can't be serious. Every question he asks is loaded bullshit.
"Why is president Bush so popular?"
"Why is president Bush so liked by the people."
"Why do I look like tweety Bird?"
Exhibit C
You have to give me the poll so I can look at it to answer that completely. Off hand I'd have to say it was the 8 years of piece and prosperity. Economy Booming, Jobs up, Office Space, not a single US troop sent away and killed. Man, those were bad times.
Exhibit D
I'd say there are just as many Conservative sites as liberal. Movies, hmmm, national review put out list of 100 of the best of them. A conservative website lists them here http://www.freedomsite.org/text/movie_review.html
Man, as for musicians, cutting out all of country is kind of unfair, since that is the Conservative wing of music. But without researching anything I could name Lynrd Skynrd, Ted Nugent, and anything on Christian music radio.
Okay the LA times. It's a somewhat progressive newspaper based in a historically liberal city. The Orange County Register is Conservative and they put out many anti-Bustamante pro-Arnold articles prior to the election. And hey I will say sorry for the LA Times for anything they said about Arnold. I was against Arnold because the guy is obviously an idiot, and just as expected is now cutting programs everywhere to sweep out special interests.
Now back onto Dean I see. Honestly I am not a Dean supporter, I like his stand on the issues but overall he is too weak a politician.
As for the claim by the Texas woman, why didn't the mass media pursue it? They pursued numerous Clinton rumours and found that he had sex with an intern. Why didn't they pursue the rape and attempt to gather evidence? Most people have never even heard of this story.
Hey awesome reading list! Franken's book is quite informative and entertaining. You forgot Moore's books too. You know that there are just as many Conservative books, if not more. If you don't believe me, visit the Barnes and Noble politics section.
Here's a little something from Franken's book that maybe makes things simple. Here's some easy numbers put out by the Pew Charitable Trusts Project for excellence in journalism.
Coverage of the the candidates in the 2000 election.
Gore Bush
Positive 13% 24%
Neutral 31% 27%
Negative 56% 49%
Looks like once again FJ will be supporting Mr. Bush.
LATES
Has Clark decided whether or not the supports/supported Iraqi Freedom yet? I"m sure whatever he's decided it'll change next week.
I got to study so I'll make this brief.
Sinner,
Dean is allowed to change his mind. If he does a good job, I don't care how many times he changes his mind. I change minne all the time.
2 drinks,
I will not be supporting Mr. Bush for '04. Have to see who's running.
When I was talking about musicians I meant those that make ploitical statements. Everyone from Ness to Madonna is criticizing Bush. And half of Skynard is dead(not that its bad). And not all country is conservative. Willie Nelson does FarmAid along with many other country singers. He also held a Dennis Kucinich benefit concert.
The list provided on movies is interesting. Most of those movies are from the '30s and '40s. Obviously not many great conservative movies in the last 50 years.
Good stats from Franken. I interpretted them a little differntly though. When there is more negative coverage for one candidate than positive for both, ther is a problem. The difference in negativity really isn't that great. You can't really say the media is pro-Bush when he gets 49% negative criticism. Just like all politics today, the coverage reflects campaigns that don't run on issues, but on digging up dirt on other candidates. The Reps. are just as capable at it as the DEMS.
Peace.
U.S. POLICY TOWARD IRAQ
Hearing Before the
House Armed Services Committee
September 26, 2002
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Its a long boring read. http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/...asc-092602.htmQuote:
CLARK: 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. 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.
I find it interesting though in that, he says action against Iraq is neccesary, but only after diplomatic relations have failed. He also points out that there is no link to Al Qaeda.
The other interesting point is that he basically predicts everything that is happening right now.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">[img]graemlins/star.gif[/img]Quote:
We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htm
Portions of this article have been used as a criticism of Clark. Read for yourself and decide. I express no opinion on this so far.
I am going to make an effort to find out more about Clark, but I doubt I will or ever have gotten much from what anyone's campaign had to tell me.
<font size="2" face="verdana, arial">Sinner, Clark has always been supportive of the war on terror, supportive of the actions of the troops, but has also always been against the government's decision to take the war on terror to Iraq. He called Iraq a "sideshow to the war on terror." General Clark from the beginning has felt that the Bush administration has had personal interest in Iraq, because Iraq had no direct link to 911, weapons of mass destruction were not found, and most importantly the general believes in International support by the UN, because of his experience as Supreme Allied Commander of NATO. There are hours of CNN tape to prove this, and Clark has recently made this clear through numerous interviews.Quote:
Originally posted by sinner:
Has Clark decided whether or not the supports/supported Iraqi Freedom yet? I"m sure whatever he's decided it'll change next week.
You can view a number of his recent interviews here http://www.us4clark.com/mediaclips.html
If you have any more questions about Clark, feel free to ask or visit the official campaign site.
To go back to the original topic, here is another part of endless barrage of links and articles.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...nces_the_rule/
And the few on this site that care can discuss New Hampshire here too because there is no reason for a new thread.
<font color="#FFFF00" size="1">[ January 23, 2004 05:10 PM: Message edited by: fag_johnson ]</font>