I mean, come on! Is this what DU is about?
Attacking Good Dems with GOP made posters?
This is why we stay behind the eight ball even when given an opportunity to advance!
In reference to Acxiom
http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/2003/09/28.html#1 SMEAR: Clark attended one Republican Fundraiser and was paid to speak. He also attended a Democratic Fundraiser a week later for Blanche Lincoln and gave the same speech. He was referring to the NATO alliance and how important it was to have the new administration stay involved with Europe....advice that they did not heed. Clark had just retired the year before and was speaking of his interest to see NATO and our Alliance with Europe continue.
Here's a link to the speech
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004065.....and the rest of the sentence and its context not advertised in the poster:
"We need them there, because we've got some tough challenges ahead in Europe.
We've got a NATO that's drifting right now. I don't know what's happened to it. But the situation in the Balkans where we've still got thousands of American troops, it's in trouble. It's going downhill on us as we're watching it. Our allies haven't quite picked up the load on that. But our allies say they're going to build a European security and defense program with a rival army to NATO. Well, I think it's a political imperative that they do more for defense, but I think we have to understand that that linkage between the United Sates and Europe, that bond on security, that's in our interest.
Look, in politics they told me--I don't know anything about politics now, I want to make that clear. But they told me--I read, do my reading in Time magazine and so forth. And they said in politics you've always got to protect your base. Well, for the United States, our base is Europe. We've got to be there, and we've got to be engaged in Europe. And that means we've got to take care of NATO, we've got to make sure the Europeans stay in it, and we've got to stay with the problem in the Balkans, even though we don't like it. " #2 SMEAR: In reference to the London Times Article, he wrote more than that one sentence....although it is the sentence that the GOP pulled out as it accordingly, without context appeared to be a cheer.
However, those who are informed about such matter and have read the piece would have understood better than those who propagandize in order to create a certain impression that will support their own political view, no matter how myopic and false a picture it might paint of someone else. This Article actually questions and raises doubts about Bush and Blair's "victory in Iraq" more than it cheers it--
Here's the article:
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0917-14.htmNext paragraph in same article about Blair and Bush....
"Is this victory? Certainly the soldiers and generals can claim success. And surely, for the Iraqis there is a new-found sense of freedom. But remember, this was all about weapons of mass destruction. They haven’t yet been found. It was to continue the struggle against terror, bring democracy to Iraq, and create change, positive change, in the Middle East. And none of that is begun, much less completed.
Let’s have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue — but don’t demobilize yet. There’s a lot yet to be done, and not only by the diplomats." #3 SMEAR: Some have wanted to say that Clark was "for" the war....or at least that he said he would have voted for the resolution.But this is the story here on that....
Wes Clark supported the Levin amendment, not the Lieberman "blank Check" amendment that John Edwards Co-Sponsored. The Levin and the Biden/Lugar and the Lieberman amendments were all still being debated on October 9, 2002....when Clark said he would have voted for "a" Resolution...What Clark was saying 2 days before the IWR VOTE:
USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them.
Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.p-fritz.net/p/irc.html What Clark was saying 1 day before the IWR VOTE:
Clark's op ed on September 10, 2002....One day before the IWR Vote:
In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.
....there is still time for dialogue before we act.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/What Clark actually said in reference to "a" Resolution on 10/09/02:
http://premium1.fosters.com/2002/election%5F2002/oct/09/us%5F2cong%5F1009a.asp"Retired U.S. Army Gen. Wesley Clark said Wednesday he supports A congressional resolution that would give President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq, although he has reservations about the country's move toward war. Clark, who led the allied NATO forces in the Kosovo conflict, endorsed Democrat Katrina Swett in the 2nd District race.?
He said if she were in Congress this week, he would advise her to vote for a resolution, but only after vigorous debate... The general said he had doubt Iraq posed a threat, and questioned whether it was immediate and said the debate about a response has been conducted backward.
Note that it is the Associated Press who claims Clark supports a resolution that would give Bush authority to use military force, whereas Clark's own words indicate he would only support "A" (key word!) resolution "after vigorous debate." Surely that can be interpreted to mean vigorous debate that would result in changes (otherwise, why debate?) --meaning he did not support the resolution "as was." Considering he had previously testified to the Armed Services Committee that the resolution need not authorize force, we can guess what he might have felt one of those changes should be.
--------
What Clark said on 9/26/02 in his testimony to congress....
Sept. 26, 2002
CLARK: Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.
My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.
There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.
snip
Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.
So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.
I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/clark.perle.testimony.pdf--------
PROOF HERE THAT THE DEBATE WAS STILL GOING ON ON OCTOBER 9, 2002, AND AMENDMENTS WERE STILL BEING VOTED ON:
http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=102EPIC ACTION ALERT- 10/9/02
Don't Let Congress Ratify Bush's Preemption Doctrine
URGENT ACTION ALERT!
Call NOW to stop the President from getting a blank check from Congress and ensure a second vote by Congress before the President can launch a war on Iraq. For the House, urge your Representative to support the Spratt and Lee Amendments. In addition, encourage them to support a “motion to recommit” (see below for more information).
Implore your Senators to support the Levin Amendment. Finally, if the amendments and motion to recommit fail, urge your Representative and Senators to vote against final passage of the President's War Resolution. You can reach your Representative and Senators via the Congressional switchboard at 202-225-3121 or 202-224-3121 or call toll-free 800-839-5276.
Contact Members of Congress at www.congress.org
#4 SMEAR: ....Wes Clark would have been a Republican if Rove would have returned his calls?
If you want to go back and dig up Howard Fineman's story and call it a fact....go ahead. I call it whoring. Be careful of the dogs you lay down with....as you will wake up with fleas.
From
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/sept0304.html#092303125pmFineman's evidence is the say-so of Colorado's Republican Governor Bill Owens and one of his appointees, Marc Holtzman.
"I would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned my phone calls," they say Clark told him.
Clark told Fineman he had just been kidding around. But Owens and Holtzman assured Fineman that Clark was dead serious.
Now, Owens is a Republican and he's close to Karl Rove and President Bush. So I don't think you've got to use your imagination too creatively to see what agenda Owens might be advancing -- especially since the story doesn't really add up on several other counts as well.http://www.jessicaswell.com/MT/archives/000839.htmlJeeze, if Clark wasn't joking....and he really did call the WH....why is this the story in a RW hack mag?
Clark Never Called Karl Wesley Clark says he would have been a Republican if Karl Rove had returned his phone calls. White House phone logs suggest otherwise.
by Matthew Continetti
09/22/2003 1:45:00 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/152tuawi.aspFrom
http://www.calpundit.com/archives/002221.htmlObviously this doesn't prove anything one way or the other, but what caught my eye is that the White House is apparently willing to search Karl Rove's phone logs upon request by reporters.
http://blogs.salon.com/0002556/2003/09/21.html
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
>
