Run, Sir Clark, Run...

by teejay 95 Replies latest social current

• 

  Satanus

  Steve martin for pres.

  SS
• 

  searcher

  Was there a purpose to that paragraph, or just mental political masturbation?

  A vote for George Bush is a vote against Hitler. Won't you vote Bush, for the Jewish babies? *earnestly*

  10 more points to you for linking Wesley Clarke with Hitler, btw.

  Your comment was stupid and the ramblings of an insane partisan. Choose sanity.

  Excellent political comment, sure to bring in the voters.
• 

  DakotaRed

  he has neither been knighted by the Queen or taken over for God

  Talk about sticking your head in the sand! I hate to have to inform you that you're wrong on both counts.

  Oh? And when was he knighted by the Queen to qualify for "Sir" Clark? As for taking over for God, well, your answer speaks for itself.

  Edited to add: I stand corrected on his "Honorary" Knighthood. But, since he is not a subject of Britain, it appears to be inapropriate to refer him as "Sir." Brits, correct me if I'm wrong.

  My comment was towards all eloquent speakers who can mislead the masses,

  Your comment was stupid and the ramblings of an insane partisan. Choose sanity.

  Ah yes, comes the insults when any Democratic God wannabe is looked at critically. But, ya'll say that we on right are the hate mongers? Funny, though, I'm an "insane partisan" for wanting to look at the candidates critically, but you all aren't after months on end of bashing Bush?

  So, it's only Republicans that are to be critically analyzed and hands off Democrats? Is that the way it is?

  Maybe the Hitler analogy hit a little too close to home?

  SS, Steve Martin for President reminds me of Pat Paulsen for President, you hamburger (Pat Paulsens infamous retort, for any lefties wanting to jump up and say it is an insult).
• 

  SixofNine

  Funny, though, I'm an "insane partisan" for wanting to look at the candidates critically, but you all aren't after months on end of bashing Bush?

  Now, now, let's try and be honest (read: non-partisan) for at least one sentence, shall we? I didn't say you were an insane partisan for any reason other than your stupid comments bringing Hitler into this topic, now did I? And who is this "you all"? This is just SixofNine, who by the way is not a democrat.
• 

  DakotaRed

  Six, I'm always honest, although I see very little demonstration of it here in return. You wish to pin my every word down, yet want yours taken broadly? And you insinuate I'm being dishonest?

  My comment about Hitler was about any eloquent speaker that can mislead people, just as I said it was. Your wanting to pin it down only to Clark or Democrats is a bit dishonest in itself.

  Last I heard, this is a public forum open to and read by many, not only you and I. Oh, and I register as an Independent and have voted for both parties.
• 

  SixofNine

  My comment about Hitler was about any eloquent speaker that can mislead people, just as I said it was.

  Perhaps a better path would be to cheer for an eloquent leader, rather than insinuating (in the most onerous manner) that that could possibly be a bad thing. Hey, this is your country too.
• 

  DakotaRed

  Six, you state how you want and I'll state how I want, okay? All I've been saying throughout this entire thread is to look at a candidate before throwing your support to them. Unless, they deserve to be blindly followed, that is.

  Any of them, regardless of party affiliation, can get up and tell people what they wish to hear. But, getting beyond that speech, you may find they aren't who they portray themselves as.

  Yes, it is my country too and none automatically get my support, I don't care what party they are. Truthfully, Bush wasn't my first choice back when he ran either, but he got the nomination and frankly, Mickey Mouse would have gotten my vote before Gore would.

  Before throwing blind support behind any candidate, I urge all the dig into them and find out who they really are. Leopards are not noted for changing their spots and neither are Politicians. Voting responsibly is all I am after.
• 

  Panda

  Dakota, Six ,TeeJay, I just finished reading about Clark on his web page. I remember seeing him as leader of NATO. There was something I wasn't sure about him and he wasn't running for President at the time. But what really got me ---

  He's an investment banker
• 

  teejay

  Dakota,
  
  Now more than ever, any and all politicians vying for the world's top job should be able to withstand intense scrutiny. General Clark should not be excluded from such an examination. I admit to knowing much more about Bush--I've "studied" the man, his words, and his past for going on three years now--than I do about Clark, and frankly, under the light of unbiased examination Bush's record does not speak favorably of a global leader.
  
  As I am more than willing to hold Clark to the same standards as I do Bush, I'd be interested to see any credible points have against General Clark. As to General Jackson's comment (to which you've now twice referred), I am far from an expert on the war in Kosovo. When it comes to armed conflict, one thing I know: there were no saints on either side -- Americans included. Secondly, in order to affect peace out of any kind of conflict like that, sometimes you have to a) choose between the lesser of two evils which leads to b) an occasional deal with the Devil.
  
  Although the reference to Hitler was an unnecessary and mean-spirited jab IMO, I agree that eloquence alone should not unduly persuade us for (or against) a particular candidate / leader. I find it incredulous that you would be one who attempted to make this point, however. He doesn't have many, but one of the few "strengths" that Bush supporters have trotted out in his favor is his supposed "straight talk," the way he conveys in clear black and white tones his views on topics put before him, his propensity to butcher all of the accepted rules of grammar notwithstanding.
  
  As you say -- it's early yet and many miles, many interviews, many possible twists in the campaign lie ahead. We will all learn more about General Clark in the coming weeks, but it's my suspicion that what we learn will do nothing but reaffirm that he's the right man at the right time.
  
  In view of Bush's falling approval ratings, it seems that America's opinion of Bush is finally harmonizing with what the man has actually done / is doing, his "straight talk" notwithstanding, and as far as I'm concerned that's nothing but a marvelous outworking of events. To Bushites, Bush's ineptness is finally becoming too obvious to cover up.
  
  Other realities about Bush and the Office he holds are finding the light of day, such as
  
  * how far off-track he's led the country overseas and at home;
  
  * how important it is that the President of the United States be studious in his own right and not so apt to delegate every major decision that crosses his desk;
  
  * that the President have clear opinions of global importance that are based, not solely on the analysis of un-elected flunkies around him with agendas of their own but from his own thoughtful consideration that's tied to what's really best for the American people (can you say "Wolfowitz"?);
  
  * that it's nice for the President of the United States to have a brain that they're unafraid to use from time to time;
  
  * that the person holding the position shows a willingness to be held accountable rather a propensity to pass the buck or cover up inconvenient facts;
  
  * that talking tough like a small town sheriff in a Hollywood movie loses its cool when our sons and daughters are dying needless deaths overseas, millions of Americans have lost or are losing their jobs, the respect of other countries the U.S. has earned over the past several decades has been pissed away in a matter of and the man at the top still doesn't have a clue.
  
  In these and other areas, General Clark has so far shown that he's head and shoulders above Bush. Like you say... we'll see what happens.
• 

  DakotaRed

  In these and other areas, General Clark has so far shown that he's head and shoulders above Bush.

  Naturally, TeeJay, I disagree with this, but you are entitled to your opinion.

  millions of Americans have lost or are losing their jobs, the respect of other countries the U.S. has earned over the past several decades has been pissed away in a matter of and the man at the top still doesn't have a clue.

  Here also I have to disagree. Jobs were being lost before Bush ever took office, maybe due to such things as NAFTA, the Kyoto Accord and other policies instituted, or maybe just a normal fluctuation in the economy.

  As for the respect other nations had for us, that too was actually being pissed away during the fiasco we now call the Kosovo campaign, under the watchful command of one, General Wesley Clark.

  Since you say you have no aversion to a critical look at Clark and being as he has no political resume' to examine, we can look back at his military career and see how well he did there. Here are a few links for you to read, if you dare. Oh, some are as equally critical of Bush too;

  http://www.indybay.org/news/2003/09/1646046.php

  http://www.tcgreens.org/gl/articles/20030917063108912.html

  http://www.antiwar.com/orig/jatras12.html

  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/koso-j08.shtml

  http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/dec1999/chin-d01.shtml

  http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/lowry/lowry082603.asp

  http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/930422/posts

  http://dynamic.washtimes.com/print_story.cfm?StoryID=20030918-073343-2743r

  http://www.counterpunch.org/stclair09172003.html

  http://www.suntimes.com/cgi-bin/print.cgi

  http://www.townhall.com/columnists/robertnovak/printrn20030922.shtml

  http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34685

  http://www.msnbc.com/news/969659.asp?0cv=KA01

  http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/world/europe/671495.stm

  http://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/09/83025_comment.php

  You may think the analogy of Hitler was a cheap shot, TeeJay, but is it really any worse than the months on end of Bush bashing that has been going on?

  As for your studies of Bush, may I also say that if all you seek is the bad, that is all you will find.