Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Politics


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-17-2004, 04:00 PM   #1 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: wisCONsin
Micheal moore and Wesley Clark

not sure if any of you have heard this or if it matters, but another 'celeb' jumped on the clark band wagon...this time michael moore. this is a link to his site if you care to take a look at what he says.

http://www.clark04.com/story/79/

Good, bad, doesn't matter. What do you think.

Mr b
mrbuck12000 is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 04:21 PM   #2 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
I don't understand how Moore can support Clark when Moore was against the Kosovo bombing and Clark was the guy running it.

Not to mention, that Clark is on congressional record (2002 I think) as having supported President Bush in Iraq.

My take is Moore is trying to support someone, anyone, who he thinks can beat Bush.

Personally, I don't think Clark is the man.

I don't think even a Dean/Clark ticket can win.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 04:29 PM   #3 (permalink)
Existentialist
 
forseti-6's Avatar
 
Location: New York City
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell

My take is Moore is trying to support someone, anyone, who he thinks can beat Bush.

Personally, I don't think Clark is the man.

I don't think even a Dean/Clark ticket can win.
I'm a big Clark supporter, and I too don't believe he nor Dean can overcome Bush. I think the whole capture of Saddam swayed too many "sheep" supporters in Bush's favor.
__________________
"Don't cry because it's over. Smile because it happened." - Dr. Seuss
forseti-6 is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 05:22 PM   #4 (permalink)
spudly
 
ubertuber's Avatar
 
Location: Ellay
I met Wesley Clark at one of his fundraisers about a month ago. To be honest, I just don't think he is compelling enough to have a real chance at the White House. His public speaking isn't great and he just doesn't do much to capture people's vision. Seemed like a nice guy, but sort of lacking in that larger-than-life charisma that is needed in national politics.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
ubertuber is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 06:11 PM   #5 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
I don't understand how Moore can support Clark when Moore was against the Kosovo bombing and Clark was the guy running it.

Not to mention, that Clark is on congressional record (2002 I think) as having supported President Bush in Iraq.

My take is Moore is trying to support someone, anyone, who he thinks can beat Bush.
BINGO

Moore is desperate for someone to beat Bush, and he figures Clark is the only one with a chance. Kinda pathetic really.
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 07:01 PM   #6 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
I don't understand how Moore can support Clark when Moore was against the Kosovo bombing and Clark was the guy running it.

Not to mention, that Clark is on congressional record (2002 I think) as having supported President Bush in Iraq.
Didn't we go into Iraq in 2003?
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 07:09 PM   #7 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Didn't we go into Iraq in 2003?
Despite some claims, its not like we just said 'Hey lets have a war!' and left. Clark is on record stating Iraq has WMD’s and supporting UNILATERAL action in Iraq in testimony to congress. What more do you need?
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 07:12 PM   #8 (permalink)
Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One
 
archer2371's Avatar
 
Location: On the front lines against our very enemy
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Didn't we go into Iraq in 2003?
Indeed we did, however initial UN Weapons Inspections and 1441 were drawn up in October of 2002. Also, the initial ideas for a working paper authorizing a UN invasion force to go into Iraq were drawn up in that year, so there was some talk about it in the fall of 2002.
__________________
"This ain't no Ice Cream Social!"

"Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it."

"I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."
archer2371 is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 07:12 PM   #9 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Didn't we go into Iraq in 2003?
Yup.

The only thing I don't remember is when Clark testified to Congress. That he testified in support of the president I remember very clearly.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 07:26 PM   #10 (permalink)
Pissing in the cornflakes
 
Ustwo's Avatar
 
Quote:
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."
__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.
Ustwo is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 07:35 PM   #11 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Don't believe everything Drudge and Rush say... Link to the full transcript follows:

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/20.../index_np.html

Quote:

As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the al-Qaida network, though such evidence may emerge. But nevertheless, winning the war against al-Qaida and taking actions against the weapons programs in Iraq, that's two different problems that may require two different sets of solutions. In other words, to put it back into military parlance, Iraq, they're an operational-level problem. We've got other operational-level problems in the Middle East, like the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Al-Qaida and the foundation of radical extremist fundamentalist Islam, that's the strategic problem.

We've got to make sure that in addressing the operational problem we're effective in going after the larger strategic problem. And so, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on al-Qaida or our efforts to deal with other immediate mid- and long-term security problems.
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees...as269000_0.htm
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 08:09 PM   #12 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
WEEELL NOW.

I just read his whole testimony and it seems to me that the best Clark can say is that he supported diplomacy first.

After that, war.

He certainly believed Iraq had WMD's and was actively pursuing nukes.

But enough.

Here is the COMPLETE testimony, pulled from that commdocs link:


------------------------------------------------------------------------


General CLARK. Thank you very much Mr. Chairman, Representative Skelton, and distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.

This is a committee that has been very strongly supportive of the men and women in uniform, and I want to thank you personally for the support that so many of you have given to me during some very, very tough times when I was in uniform. And, on behalf of all the men and women and their families, we really appreciate this committee, your commitment, your willingness to give up your own time to come out and visit with the troops, your determination to work interests on behalf of the troops and families when there is nothing but your duty as representatives of the people on the line. And, we recognize it and we appreciate it and we are grateful for it.

I want to tell you also I am very honored to be here, because I believe that in our democracy, discussions of critical strategic issues—and this is certainly one—at an historic time strengthen the United States, they don't weaken us.

Public information, public dialogue, and public discussion is what this country is all about. And, certainly when we are considering a course as fraught with uncertainty as that which appears to be unfolding before us, we need the wholehearted understanding and resolution of the American people. And, I am particularly honored, Mr. Chairman, that you would ask me as a retired military officer to come back and appear before you and that you would consider my opinions and concerns relevant to the issue at hand, even though I have left the United States Army and I am now engaged in another profession, which is under question—investment banking. And so, I am delighted to be with you, sir. I have submitted a written statement, but I would like to summarize——

Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

Mr. HUNTER. Welcome back, General.

General CLARK. I would like to summarize a few points from it.

Mr. HUNTER. Without objection, your statement will be taken into the record.

General CLARK. There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat. I was in the Joint Staff in October of 1994. I think the date was the 8th of October, Thursday morning. The intelligence officer walked in and said, ''Sir, you are not going to believe this. Here are the pictures. You can't believe that this is the Republican Guard. They are right back in the same attack positions that they occupied four years ago before they invaded Kuwait. And here are the two divisions, and there are signs of mobilization and concerns north, and we can't understand it.''

And, General Peay was the commander of Central Command (CENTCOM). Shalikashvili, I think, was visiting Haiti at the time with Secretary of Defense Perry, and we rushed together and we put together a program. General Peay deployed some 15,000 American troops and aircraft over to block it. And, after a few days Saddam Hussein recognized what a difficult position he had put himself in and withdrew the troops. But, we had not expected it. It was an unanticipated move. It made no sense from our point of view for Saddam Hussein to do this, but he did it. It was a signal warning that Saddam Hussein is not only malevolent and violent, but he is also to some large degree unpredictable, at least to us. I am sure he has a rationale for what he is doing, but we don't always know it.

Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

He does retain his chemical and biological capabilities to some extent. And 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 risk, as would we. Saddam might use these weapons as a deterrent while launching attacks against Israel or his other neighbors. He might threaten American forces in the region. He might determine that he was the messenger of Allah and simply strike directly at Israel; or Israel, weighing the possibilities of blackmail or aggression, might feel compelled to strike Iraq first.

Now, Saddam has been pursuing nuclear weapons and we have been living with this risk for over 20 years. He does not have the weapons now as best we can determine. He might have the weapons in a year or two if the control for the highly enriched uranium and other materials broke down. I think his best opportunity would have been to go to his friend Slobodon Milosevic and ask for those materials during the Kosovo campaign, since there was active collusion between the Serbs and the Iraqis; but apparently, if he asked for them, he didn't get them, because the Serbs have turned them over for us. If he can't get the highly enriched uranium, then it might take him five years or more to go through a centrifuge process or gaseous diffusion process to enrich the uranium.

But, the situation is not stable. The U.N. weapons inspectors, however ineffective they might have been—and there is some degree of difference of opinion on that—nevertheless provided assistance in impeding his development programs. They have been absent for four years. And, the sanction regime designed to restrict his weapons materials and resources has been continuously eroded and therefore the situation is not stable.

Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

The problem of Iraq is not a problem that can be postponed indefinitely. And of course, Saddam's current efforts themselves are violations of international law as expressed in U.N. resolutions.

Our President has emphasized the urgency of eliminating these weapons and weapons programs. I strongly support his efforts to encourage the United Nations to act on this problem. And, in taking this to the United Nations the President's clear determination to act if the United Nations can't, provides strong leverage for undergirding ongoing diplomatic efforts.

But, the problem of Iraq is only one element of the broader security challenges facing our country. We have an unfinished worldwide war against al Qaeda, a war that has to be won in conjunction with friends and allies, and that ultimately will be won as much by persuasion as by the use of force. We have got to turn off the al Qaeda recruiting machine. Now some 3,000 deaths on September 11 testified to the real danger from al Qaeda. And, I think everyone acknowledges that al Qaeda has not yet been defeated.

As far as I know, I haven't seen any substantial evidence linking Saddam's regime to the al Qaeda network, though such evidence may emerge. But nevertheless, winning the war against al Qaeda and taking actions against the weapons program in Iraq, those are two different problems that may require two different sets of solutions. In other words, to put it back in the military parlance, Iraq—they are an operational-level problem. We have got other operational-level problems in the Middle East, like the ongoing conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Al Qaeda and the foundation of radical extremist fundamentalist Islam, that is the strategic problem. We have got to make sure that in addressing the operational problem, we are effective in going after the larger strategic problem.

Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

So, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on al Qaeda or our efforts to deal with other immediate and maybe long-term security problems.

I would like to offer the following observations by way of how we could proceed. First of all, I do believe United States diplomacy in the United Nations will be strengthened if the Congress can adopt a resolution expressing U.S. determination to act if the United Nations cannot act. The use of force must remain a U.S. option under active consideration. Such congressional resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force. The more focused the resolution on Iraq, the more focused it is on the problem of weapons of mass destruction, the greater its utility in the United Nations, the more nearly unanimous the resolution, the greater its utility is, the greater its impact is on the diplomatic efforts underway.

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. This may require a period of time for inspections or the development of a more intrusive inspection regime such as Richard Perle has mentioned, if necessary, backed by force. It may involve cracking down on the eroding sanctions regime and countries like Syria who are helping Iraq illegally export oil, and enabling Saddam Hussein to divert resources to his own purposes.

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 and not be too quick to rush to try to impose them, even if we have the power to do so.

Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

I agree that there is 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 coalition, including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in the North Atlantic Council, if we are 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 readied. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance in preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.

Ideally, the international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations: the United Nations, NATO, other regional and other organizations, Islamic organizations. But, we have no idea how long this campaign could last. And, if it were to go like the campaign against the Afghans, against the Taliban in which suddenly the Taliban collapsed and there we were, we need to be ready; because, if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we are 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 we will remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than to helping to solve it.

Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC

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 is information that indicates that a further delay would represent an immediate risk to the assembled forces and organizations. And, I want to underscore that 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 is longstanding, it has been a decade in the making and needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this.

Obviously, once initiated, a military operation should aim for the most respected accomplishment of its operational aims and prompt turnover to follow-on organizations and agencies.

And, I think if we proceed as outlined above, we may be able to minimize the disruption to the ongoing campaign against al Qaeda. We could reduce the impact on friendly governments in the region and even contribute to the resolution of other regional issues, perhaps such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Iranian efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and Saudi funding for terrorism.

But, there are no guarantees. The war is unpredictable. It could be difficult and costly. And, what is at risk in the aftermath is an open-ended American ground commitment in Iraq and an even deeper sense of humiliation in the Arab world, which could intensify our problems in the region and elsewhere.


Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The yellow light is flashing. We have a problem. We have got to muster the best judgment in this country. We have to muster the will of the American people. And, we've got to be prepared to deal with this problem. But, time is on our side in the near term and we should use it. Thank you.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-17-2004, 11:47 PM   #13 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Hmm. All I see is people questioning him for his initial support of the administration. As more facts came to the front (or lack there of) he changed his mind about supporting the process. Sounds like a thinker to me. Clark's got my vote. But hell, even Sharpton would be better than the resident. (shakes head, can't believe I just typed that, or believed it.)
__________________
I do blame you for voting for Bush.
jbuffett is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 06:46 AM   #14 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
I think this quote of his is especially telling of his position on the war:

Quote:

If the efforts to resolve the problem by using the United Nations fail either initially or ultimately, then we need to form the broadest coalition, including our North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies in the North Atlantic Council, if we are 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 readied. This includes dealing with requirements for humanitarian assistance, police and judicial capabilities, emergency medical and reconstruction assistance in preparations for a transitional governing body and eventual elections, perhaps even including a new constitution.

Ideally, the international and multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post-conflict operations: the United Nations, NATO, other regional and other organizations, Islamic organizations. But, we have no idea how long this campaign could last. And, if it were to go like the campaign against the Afghans, against the Taliban in which suddenly the Taliban collapsed and there we were, we need to be ready; because, if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we are 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 we will remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than to helping to solve it.


He supported building as multilateral a coalition as possible to go in, and only go in unilaterally as a very last resort. He also said that "[force] should be used as the last resort after all diplomatic means have been exhausted."

Also, that wasn't the complete testimony, Lebell. That was just his opening statement. Clark and Richard Perle both answered questions for quite some time, until Clark had to leave to catch a plane at Reagan
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 07:42 AM   #15 (permalink)
Junkie
 
james t kirk's Avatar
 
Location: Toronto
Quote:
Originally posted by forseti-6
I'm a big Clark supporter, and I too don't believe he nor Dean can overcome Bush. I think the whole capture of Saddam swayed too many "sheep" supporters in Bush's favor.
Don't worry.

Allot can happen between now and November 2004.

At this time in 91, people were writing off the democrats and everyone thought bush was going to win again (Who is this Clinton guy?)

We'll see.
james t kirk is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 07:42 AM   #16 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
I think if they stood a stuffed shirt against Bush it would win, the democratic candidate is going to be president. I dont really know enough about them all to say who I'd back, but I hope Nader stands, he was the best candidate last time for sure.

Dean seems to be the most progressive of the possible next presidents to me, but like I said, I dont know enough to really back one person.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 09:13 AM   #17 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by Sparhawk
Also, that wasn't the complete testimony, Lebell. That was just his opening statement. Clark and Richard Perle both answered questions for quite some time, until Clark had to leave to catch a plane at Reagan
Oh, sorry.

I just didn't read far enough.

My bad.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 10:15 AM   #18 (permalink)
Upright
 
Location: MN, USA
Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Famous
I think if they stood a stuffed shirt against Bush it would win, the democratic candidate is going to be president. I dont really know enough about them all to say who I'd back, but I hope Nader stands, he was the best candidate last time for sure.
Politics aside, have you ever seen/heard Nader speak? The public is never going to elect someone who looks and sounds like their crazy old uncle. Sorry.
hlprmnky is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 10:25 AM   #19 (permalink)
follower of the child's crusade?
 
Well, they "elected" someone who speaks like Bush, someone who we are not actually 100% sure can read.

And whatever people think of the legality of the election, Bush did get a very high proportion of people's votes.
__________________
"Do not tell lies, and do not do what you hate,
for all things are plain in the sight of Heaven. For nothing
hidden will not become manifest, and nothing covered will remain
without being uncovered."

The Gospel of Thomas
Strange Famous is offline  
Old 01-18-2004, 10:30 AM   #20 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by Strange Famous
I think if they stood a stuffed shirt against Bush it would win, the democratic candidate is going to be president. I dont really know enough about them all to say who I'd back, but I hope Nader stands, he was the best candidate last time for sure.

Dean seems to be the most progressive of the possible next presidents to me, but like I said, I dont know enough to really back one person.
Look,

My personal politics completely aside, this post is pure wishful thinking.

Fine, you think Bush is stupid, to the point of doubting that he can even read. (I don't think you're serious about that last, but who knows.)

But anyone who CAN read a poll knows that the Dems are worried.

Many Dems I speak to don't think Dean can win and he's their best shot, IMO.

So while you may not like Bush, at least be realistic.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 02:45 AM   #21 (permalink)
Insane
 
There are good reasons not to support Clark, here is one of them.
Quote:
CONCORD, N.H. -- Retired General Wesley K. Clark sometimes downplays his Army background, and criticizes the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays. But there is one military institution he vigorously defends: the controversial academy once known as the US Army School of the Americas.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

For more on the "School of the Americas," read the accompanying article, "School of Assassins."
Quote:
What do Col. Byron Lima Estrada of Guatemala, Lt. Josê Espinoza Guerra and General Juan Orlando Zepeda, both of El Salvador, and General Juan López Ortiz of Mexico have in common?

They are all murderers. They were all trained at the School of the Americas. Because of them, and because of thousands of others like them, many people call U.S. Army's School of the Americas the "School of Assassins."

And what do Panama's Manuel Noriega, Argentina's Leopoldo Galtiere, Peru's Juan Velasco Alvarado, Ecuador's Guillermo Rodriguez, and Bolivia's Hugo Banzer have in common? They have all been dictators in their countries, and they were all trained at the School of the Americas. Because of them, and others, many people call the U.S. Army's School of the Americas the "School of Coups."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1118-12.htm

That's right folks, a terrorist training camp in our own back yard whose graduates have been responsible for the killings of tens if not hundreds of thousands of South Americans...
hammer4all is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 07:01 AM   #22 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by hammer4all
There are good reasons not to support Clark, here is one of them.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0117-01.htm

For more on the "School of the Americas," read the accompanying article, "School of Assassins."

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1118-12.htm

That's right folks, a terrorist training camp in our own back yard whose graduates have been responsible for the killings of tens if not hundreds of thousands of South Americans...
I've met more than a few latin american military officers, including some who have been to the school of the americas. My opinion, based on personal anecdotes, is that those who went to the school are better off than those who didn't - they spent their time there learning American values, officership, integrity, and a sense of professionalism - all things militaries down in latin america could use more of. Did some officers go there with false intentions? Sure - but by and large the school is a force for good.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-19-2004, 01:22 PM   #23 (permalink)
Insane
 


Rude comment removed.


Last edited by Lebell; 01-19-2004 at 10:20 PM..
hammer4all is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 02:56 PM   #24 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Washington
Despite any political or person flaws, you have to love Clark's TV ad explaining his position on Outkast.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

-Aristotle
smooth_4 is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 02:57 PM   #25 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Washington
which can be found here:

http://www.rockthevote.com/multimedi....affl.150k.mov
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

-Aristotle
smooth_4 is offline  
Old 01-21-2004, 06:07 PM   #26 (permalink)
Dubya
 
Location: VA
Quote:
Originally posted by smooth_4
which can be found here:

http://www.rockthevote.com/multimedi....affl.150k.mov
That... is Hilarious.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work."
Sparhawk is offline  
Old 01-22-2004, 04:27 PM   #27 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: NJ
moore didnt just start supporting clarke, if you read his latest book, which was written before clarke even joined the democratic ballot, moore supported him there and then.
__________________
rawr.
mbchills is offline  
Old 01-23-2004, 10:29 PM   #28 (permalink)
Insane
 
Today, Moore was on Democracy Now! explaining why he is supporting Clark. They also get into the whole "School of the Americas" question... Maybe there is still hope for Clark changing his stance on the issue after all.

http://www.democracynow.org/article..../01/23/1622230
hammer4all is offline  
Old 01-24-2004, 08:56 AM   #29 (permalink)
Tilted
 
Location: Washington
I have to agree with Jon Stewart's appraisal on this one. Clark is running a pretty centrist campaign, I'm not sure Moore's endorsement fits well with his strategy.
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.

-Aristotle
smooth_4 is offline  
Old 01-26-2004, 01:57 PM   #30 (permalink)
Crazy
 
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Gotta back up mbchills' response on this one.

Most folks seem to be either ignoring or ignorant to the fact that Moore was pushing for Clark to run in "Dude, Where's My Country?", which was obviously published long before Clark announced his official intention to run. If the Moore-haters would like to actually find out the reasons why, hop on down to Barnes and Noble.

That said, he was REALLY pushing Oprah. I wonder if he'd drop Clark for Oprah if she announced. Heh.
Tomservo is offline  
Old 01-26-2004, 02:46 PM   #31 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Norway
Quote:
Originally posted by ubertuber
I met Wesley Clark at one of his fundraisers about a month ago. To be honest, I just don't think he is compelling enough to have a real chance at the White House. His public speaking isn't great and he just doesn't do much to capture people's vision. Seemed like a nice guy, but sort of lacking in that larger-than-life charisma that is needed in national politics.
....Unlike Bush, who certainly inherits that brutal, overwhelming, larger-than-life chraisma...in a confused child-sort of way.

Quote:
Originally posted by Ustwo
BINGO
Moore is desperate for someone to beat Bush, and he figures Clark is the only one with a chance. Kinda pathetic really.
Oh man oh man a democratic media figure wants his party to win the election through various means. What a loser.

irony/
Did anyone mention that Moore is fat yet? Cuz you know, he is. Also he lied in a movie because he edited it and also gave it a message. These facts needs to be spread ASAP.
/irony
European Son is offline  
Old 01-26-2004, 02:56 PM   #32 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by European Son
irony/
Did anyone mention that Moore is fat yet? Cuz you know, he is. Also he lied in a movie because he edited it and also gave it a message. These facts needs to be spread ASAP.
/irony

I couldn't give two hoots if Moore is fat or skinny.

However, if you want to talk about the ultimate irony, we can rehash him getting an oscar for best documentary when BFC is anything but.

That however would be a threadjack + it's been done to death around here.

Do a search if you're interested.

Or you can check out the very well documented lies and hypocrisy of MM on www.moorewatch.com and www.bowlingfortruth.com .
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-26-2004, 03:03 PM   #33 (permalink)
Banned
 
Location: Norway
oh shi.....


Please dear sir, I promise not to mention Moore again, if you promise to halt your posting of lame websites regarding him.





But really, look at him....he is fat you know...
European Son is offline  
Old 01-26-2004, 03:05 PM   #34 (permalink)
Cracking the Whip
 
Lebell's Avatar
 
Location: Sexymama's arms...
Quote:
Originally posted by European Son
oh shi.....


Please dear sir, I promise not to mention Moore again, if you promise to halt your posting of lame websites regarding him.





But really, look at him....he is fat you know...

Lame websites?

Feel free to start another thread and tell me how they are "lame".

I'll be more than happy to listen to your arguments.
__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!
Lebell is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 12:00 AM   #35 (permalink)
Psycho
 
Location: Tampa
Didn't Clark almost start WWIII by telling his men to take a base from the russians? Something one of my friends said....
yellowgowild is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 08:42 AM   #36 (permalink)
Banned
 
I heard this as well, but Matt, Clarks son seemed to offer some sort of explanation (long and drawn out). I can't remember what it was but it seemed reasonable enough.

Everything else he said was retarted though. If you think Clark isn't very compelling wait untill you hear his son talk. Their playing up that "innocent, haven't had the opportunity to be corrupted by politics" way too much. He looks a lot like his dad, and sounds identical to him, just slower (imagine Clark giving a speech after a few bong hits).
matthew330 is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 10:31 AM   #37 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Michigan
Michael Moore is a douche bag
EbolaVirus is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 10:50 AM   #38 (permalink)
Sir, I have a plan...
 
debaser's Avatar
 
Location: 38S NC20943324
Quote:
Originally posted by yellowgowild
Didn't Clark almost start WWIII by telling his men to take a base from the russians? Something one of my friends said....
No. Clarke was ordered by the Secretary General to block runways at the Pristina airport to prevent the Russians from landing troops, thus injecting themselves into the rather fluid Balkan conflict. He followed orders, his subordinate did not.
__________________

Fortunato became immured to the sound of the trowel after a while.
debaser is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 12:52 PM   #39 (permalink)
it's jam
 
splck's Avatar
 
Location: Lowerainland BC
Quote:
Originally posted by EbolaVirus
Michael Moore is a douche bag
I'll add to this well thought out post....

No he's not.

...Phew, that was tough.
__________________
nice line eh?
splck is offline  
Old 01-27-2004, 08:25 PM   #40 (permalink)
Meat Popsicle
 
Location: Left Coast
Quote:
Originally posted by Lebell
I don't understand how Moore can support Clark when Moore was against the Kosovo bombing and Clark was the guy running it.

This sort of argument baffles me. Clark was doing his job. He didn't make policy. He was an instrument of policy, a tool of government.

Maybe the Army is different, but in the Navy, officers are not encouraged to have opinions about policy. They do as they are told. They support the command, end of discussion.

Not that I care much for Clark. He's Johnny Bravo. The dems have him running simply because he "fits the suit".
fnaqzna is offline  
 

Tags
clark, micheal, moore, wesley

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:30 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360