Looks like the Democrats' have another winner.

[incubus]

General Clark: "Saddam is not a criminal"

 

quick article

 

where do they find these fuckers?

[AlpineK]

That's not what he said.

 

Spinning away...

[incubus]

bullshit K, you and I both know he's another fucked up candidate. he changes his stories daily.

[AlpineK]

If you read the article he says that the US deals with asshole countries/leaders that have done nasty nasty things in the past.

 

Stopping ethnic cleansing that is taking place right now is one thing, but invading a country that doesn't represent an imminent threat is wrong.

 

Speaking of which where are those WMD that Iraq was suppose to have?

[incubus]

who gives a shit about wmd? the world is a better place with saddam and bin lackin on the run.

[mr.radon]

General Clark is the same ilk as General George B. McClellan; thinks he's so smart he knows better then the rest of us. (typical liberal attitude)

McClellan ran for president, look what happened to him. Go Clark, go... Make it easy for us this year.

 

Edited September 26, 2003 by mr.radon

[Sphinx]

See a smart person's thoughts on the topic here .

[hakioawa]

mr.radon said:

General Clark is the same ilk as General George B. McClellan; thinks he's so smart he knows better then the rest of us. (typical liberal attitude)

McClellan ran for president, look what happened to him. Go Clark, go... Make it easy for us this year.

 

 

Whatever you think about "typical liberals" we sure can build a military. Clinton's army did a fine job in Iraq.

[mr.radon]

No, thank you Reagan!!!

Don't get me started on that pot smoking, skirt chasing, tax raising, two faced lying, yellow bellied, bureaucrat that Clinton was. Funny thing is that Liberals supported him even when he co-opted all the conservative Republican issues like Welfare Reform! Otherwise he never would have been elected or re-elected.

Better yet, I love the fact Clinton was elected, without him we never could have won control of the Senate and House of Representative!

[scrambler]

mr.radon said:

No, thank you Reagan!!!

Don't get me started on that pot smoking, skirt chasing, tax raising, two faced lying, yellow bellied, bureaucrat that Clinton was. Funny thing is that Liberals supported him even when he co-opted all the conservative Republican issues like Welfare Reform! Otherwise he never would have been elected or re-elected.

Better yet, I love the fact Clinton was elected, without him we never could have won control of the Senate and House of Representative!

 

Why such a visceral response? Man, you use a lot of loaded words. Anyway, I disagree with ya on the reason for the 'Republican Revolution' of '94.

 

I believe that the Democratic Party fell victim to their own success. The Democrats experienced approximately 45 years of majority rule following WWII. Here, from Machiavelli's own mouth: "Not even a victorious faction ever remained united, except so long as the opposing faction was vigorous. But when a beaten faction was destroyed, since the party in power no longer felt any fear that could restrict it and had no law of its own to check it, the victor became divided."-- Machiavelli, History of Florence (1525).

 

So, what I'm saying is that the Democratic Party lost its focus and that partially underlies the reason for their populist defeat in the legislative branch. Of course, I could just be blowing this out my ass. I'm no political scientist.

[mr.radon]

scrambler said:

Why such a visceral response?

Clinton was and still is a most dishonorable man, period.

 

scrambler said:

Man, you use a lot of loaded words. Anyway, I disagree with ya on the reason for the 'Republican Revolution' of '94.

Accept it, the truth hurts.

 

scrambler said:

I believe that the Democratic Party fell victim to their own success. The Democrats experienced approximately 45 years of majority rule following WWII. Here, from Machiavelli's own mouth: "Not even a victorious faction ever remained united, except so long as the opposing faction was vigorous. But when a beaten faction was destroyed, since the party in power no longer felt any fear that could restrict it and had no law of its own to check it, the victor became divided."-- Machiavelli, History of Florence (1525).

Nah, way off the mark. "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" Democrats became absolutely corrupted. Clinton just acted as a catalyst. Democrats have got a long way to go to fix their party.

Anyway, only a wishy, washy thinks he's an intellectual like Clark would feel comfortable in the Democratic party. Personally I hope Dean wins, it'll be like Mondale all over again.

[Formaldehead]

More appropriately: Absolute power attracts corruptable people.

[RobBob]

Clinton's army did a fine job in Iraq.

 

The Clinton admin did a fine job of getting a bunch of our young men killed in Mogadishu.

[Formaldehead]

RobBob said:

Clinton's army did a fine job in Iraq.

 

The Clinton admin did a fine job of getting a bunch of our young men killed in Mogadishu.

 

After watching Black Hawk Down, I can safely say that Clinton wasn't even in Mogadishu, fool. BTW, people getting killed is what war is all about. You can't have fire without smoke.

[RobBob]

We weren't 'at war,' which is precisely one of the reasons that goatfuck went down as it did. Yes, I believe that Clinton, Les Aspin, and co. were directly responsible for the decisions which led to it.

[mr.radon]

RobBob said:

Clinton's army did a fine job in Iraq.

If it were the "President's" Army we would be in a military dictatorship. Hitler co-opted the military by having them swear allegiance to himself. As I recall I did not swear alegance to support and defend the President of the United States but this oath:

"I,(name), do solemly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed overme, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

[RobBob]

the phrase 'Clinton's army' was Haki's, not RobBob's

[gapertimmy]

okay, why don't we all face it, save ourselves some spray, and agree that this man will be the next president:

 

[RobBob]

This man for president

[j_b]

ouch!

[incubus]

 

DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU SEPT 25, 2003 16:05:37 ET

 

GENERAL CLARK PRAISED CONDI, POWELL, RUMSFELD AND BUSH: 'WE NEED THEM THERE'

 

**World Exclusive**

 

Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark offered lavish praise for the Bush Administration and its key players in a speech to Republicans -- just two years ago, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal!

 

MORE

 

During extended remarks delivered at the Pulaski County GOP Lincoln Day Dinner in Little Rock, Arkansas on May 11, 2001, General Clark declared: "And I'm very glad we've got the great team in office, men like Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice... people I know very well - our president George W. Bush. We need them there."

 

A video of Clark making the comments has surfaced, DRUDGE can reveal.

 

MORE

 

Clark praised Reagan for improving the military:

 

"We were really helped when President Ronald Reagan came in. I remember non-commissioned officers who were going to retire and they re-enlisted because they believed in President Reagan."

 

Clark continued: "That's the kind of President Ronald Reagan was. He helped our country win the Cold War. He put it behind us in a way no one ever believed would be possible. He was truly a great American leader. And those of us in the Armed Forces loved him, respected him, and tremendously admired him for his great leadership."

 

Clark on President George Bush: "President George Bush had the courage and the vision... and we will always be grateful to President George Bush for that tremendous leadership and statesmanship."

 

Clark on American military involvement overseas:

 

"Do you ever ask why it is that these people in these other countries can't solve their own problems without the United States sending its troops over there? And do you ever ask why it is the Europeans, the people that make the Mercedes and the BMW's that got so much money can't put some of that money in their own defense programs and they need us to do their defense for them?"

 

"And I'll tell you what I've learned from Europe is that are a lot of people out in the world who really, really love and admire the United States. Don't you ever believe it when you hear foreign leaders making nasty comments about us. That's them playing to their domestic politics as they misread it. Because when you talk to the people out there, they love us. They love our values. They love what we stand for in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights."

 

Impacting...

 

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

Filed By Matt Drudge

Reports are moved when circumstances warrant

http://www.drudgereport.com for updates

©DRUDGE REPORT 2003

 

[Ursa_Eagle]

are you kidding? the man on the left has it MADE!

[JoshK]

mr.radon said:

Clinton was and still is a most dishonorable man, period.

 

Wow, you must be a complete idiot to believe that clinton is a "most dishonorable man" and your boy Bushy isn't. The crap that bush pulled makes things like whitewater pale in comparison. The ease at which the current administration can be bought of with corporate pressure and donations is sickening. Open your eyes, fool.

[Fairweather]

The US Army was reduced from 18 combat divisions to 10 under Clinton's tenure. When I now hear the (anti-military) liberals/democrats claim it was Clinton's military that won in Iraq, I just laugh.

 

Clinton was (and still is) a dishonorable man. Not just because of Whitewater, or because he denied Paula Jones her civil rights, but because he sold missile staging technology to the PLA for (a mere) $200,000 in campaign cash.

 

Now he's giving speeches at a chilren's charity event in Seattle for an "undisclosed" fee.

[Bug]

You are all fools to think this is a "Democrat" or a "Republican" issue. The issue is that Americans do not care enough to do their own research and vote accordingly. Or even vote. If they did, we would not have half the half-wits we now have on both sides of the aisles. Which one was more dispicible, Bush or Clinton? SHit you fools, we have been sold down the river by all of them. They are counting on us bickering over their CONSTRUCTED press barrages and not one of them can be counted on to tell the truth about ANYTHING. Think about what you would have to say and do to get the Presidential Nomination of either party. Most of us would get arrested. It is time to stand together and clean out Washington and Olympia for that matter. The only difference between thte Democrats and the Republicans these days is which corporations are spend the most money on them. The only stuff that is worth reading are the boring details that do not sell. You will not find those in the modern press. There have been no great presidents in modern times. Only media moguls. History will bear this out as we look back at the errosion of our constituional rights under both parties leadership. It will be through boards like these that a revolution will take place. Flame on.