Do you want the next President of the U.S. to be using rhetoric like this?

[Clarkie1]

Poll question: Do you want the next President of the U.S. to be using rhetoric like this?

Hillary, Feb. 14, 2007

"Now, make no mistake, Iran poses a threat to our allies and our interests in the region and beyond, including the United States. The Iranian president has held a conference denying the Holocaust and has issued bellicose statement after bellicose statement calling for Israel and the United States to be wiped off the map. His statements are even more disturbing and urgent when viewed in the context of the regime's quest to acquire nuclear weapons. The regime also uses its influence and resources in the region to support terrorist elements that attack Israel. Hezbollah's attack on Israel this summer, using Iranian weapons, clearly demonstrates Iran's malevolent influence even beyond its borders. We also have evidence, although it is by no means conclusive, of attacks using Iranian-supplied or manufactured weaponry against our own American soldiers. As I have long said and will continue to say, U.S. policy must be clear and unequivocal: We cannot, we should not, we must not permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons. And in dealing with this threat, as I've also said for a long time, no option can be taken off the table."

http://clinton.senate.gov/news/statements/details.cfm?id=269287

Or perhaps you would prefer more of this....

Retired General Wesley Clark, Feb. 12, 2007

"The American troop surge is not likely to impact Iran's on-the-ground influence in Iraq. Their presence serves the interests of some in Iraq; and they are deeply embedded and widely active. Only their perception of new interests and opportunities is likely to do this. They would need to see their situation through a different lens. It is asking a lot. But, cannot the world's most powerful nation deign speak to the resentful and scheming regional power that is Iran? Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue, and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region? Could not such a dialogue, properly conducted, begin a process that could, over time, help realign hardened attitudes and polarizing views within the region? And isn't it easier to undertake such a dialogue now, before more die, and more martyrs are created to feed extremist passions? And, finally, if every effort should fail, before we take military action, don't we at least want the moral, legal and political "high ground" of knowing we did everything possible to avert it?"

http://securingamerica.com/node/2234

You decide...

[Mojambo]

1. I want them to be reciting the lyrics to "Funky Cold Medina" n/t

[SallyMander]

70. LOL... thanks for the giggle

on a gloomy day!

~Sally

[MrSlayer]

2. Clark doesn't play the stupid political games Hillary does.

Especially with issues as important as this one. He knows what he's talking about and has real, viable solutions while Hillary plays right into the Republican talking points and has no solutions. It is things like the examples above that make me love Clark and greatly dislike Hillary.

[cool user name]

63. See this thread, MrSlayer

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3114758&mesg_id=3114758

[MrSlayer]

102. Checked it out.

Not surprised in the least.

[cool user name]

109. Didn't think you would. n/t

[Canuckistanian]

3. The second speaker sounds like a more thoughtful person

No escalations of tension, no veiled threats, just a common-sense voicing of an opinion that has worked since time immemorial - that talking is better than warring. That understanding is better than aggression.

That taking the "high ground" will always benefit in the end and that haste... well, makes waste.

[Bitwit1234]

4. I say it once and I'll say it again

We don't need the republics bashing our candidates the democrats are swiftboating them all their selves. It is a shame. This is the way the democrats have acted for the last six years no wonder they can't get elected. Hillary Clinton will not get the nomination because she is a woman. Because she has been swiftboated for the 15 years by the republics. Because even her own party who doesn't want a woman is swiftboating her.

The more the dems slur their own the more the people will turn against their candidates, whether that good or not.

[melissinha]

9. not liking her statement is not swift-boating

its acknowledging the type of speech you would prefer in a President. I am a woman and its not out of bitchiness that I don't like her. I don't like her cause she plays these games, if she's the candidate, so be it. But there are better men and women who could do a better job.

[spooky3]

16. The OP should refer to both candidates by their titles OR by first names.

If it's General Wesley Clark, then it's Senator Hillary Clinton. Or Wes and Hill.

Women and minorities are often dismissed in this fashion.

[SaveElmer]

20. It is swiftboating when...

You willingly and knowingly take her comments out of context, and "conveniently" leave out the many portions of her speech that refute the point of the post...

[beaconess]

98. Damn straight!

[lancdem]

5. This is an unbiased post

not.

[Union Thug]

6. Every time I work up the nerve to say I'd hold my nose and vote for

hillary if she were the Democratic candidate for pres, she makes some asinine statement like the one you cited here and I have to rethink my position. Clark, while not my favorite, is light years ahead of Hillary.

[mtnsnake]

7. How about also providing the link to what Hillary said.

All you have is the link to Clark's speech.

I want to see the link to the segment you pasted so I can see her full speech and context of it. Thanks.

[Clarkie1]

8. Done. nt

[mtnsnake]

10. "Clinton: No Military Action on Iran Without Congressional Authority"

That's the headline above the same article where you got your one segment from, and that headline alone shows a very different side of her views on Iran than the single part that you showed in your OP.

Just the same, thanks for the link.

[lvx35]

12. Hillary says some good things there, but I never get the sense I understand her stance.

Clark comes across to me as much more consistent. For instance, Hillary says "make no mistake, Iran is a threat". Then says later that all the intelligence on Iran is all very questionable. So I don't get the sense that she takes a stand like Clark, I don't get the sense that I am getting her convictions, though I do like Hillary a lot.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. There's a little difference there --

Hillary is a politician. Clark is a diplomat. Politicians talk to people. Diplomats talk with people.

[arewenotdemo]

26. excellent point

[cool user name]

64. Well said, NCevilDuer!

[welshTerrier2]

13. is "know thy enemy" so you can exploit their weaknesses the objective of diplomacy?

from Hillary's speech cited in the OP:

I believe we can better understand how to deal with an adversary such as Iran if we have some direct contact with them. I think that can give us valuable information and better leverage to hold over the Iranian regime.

Hillary called for diplomacy as one of the items included in things we should not take off the table. It seems to me one of the objectives of diplomacy should be to improve communication and understanding, not in the hope of bludgeoning your adversaries with the information you obtain, but rather in the hope of "waging peace".

Clinton's statements on diplomacy perfectly fit the Hillary mold of having it both ways. "I wouldn't rule out diplomacy but I would use it to crush those evil Iranians bastards."

yeah, that would lead to peace ...

[Clarkie1]

14. "Can we not speak of the interests of others, work to establish a sustained dialogue,

and seek to benefit the people of Iran and the region?"

[invictus]

15. Wes Clark !!!!

If not Wes, then Obama. No way to Hillary.

[SaveElmer]

17. As usual with the Hillary hater brigade...

You leave out the parts that are inconvenient for you...I will supply the rest...

But America must proceed deliberately and wisely, and we must proceed as a unified nation. The smartest and strongest policy will be one forged through the institutions of our democracy. That is the genius of our American system and our constitutional duty. We have witnessed these past six years-- until the most recent election of a new Congress by the American people-- the cost of congressional dereliction of its oversight duty, a vital role entrusted to Congress by our constituents, enshrined in, and even required by our Constitution. So we are here today because the price that has been paid in blood and treasure; through the rush to war in Iraq and the incompetence of its execution and managing the aftermath; in the excesses of military contracting abuses and the inadequate supply of body armor and armored vehicles on the ground have led to a loss of confidence among our allies and the American people in this Administration. Therefore, Mr. President, we cannot and we must not allow recent history to repeat itself.

We continue to experience the consequences of unchecked Presidential action. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, but this President was allowed, for too long, to commit blunder after blunder under cover of darkness provided by an allied Republican Congress.

In dealing with the threats posed by the Iranian regime, which has gained its expanding influence in Iraq and the region as a result of the Administration's policies, President Bush must not be allowed to act without the authority and oversight of Congress. It would be a mistake of historical proportion if the Administration thought that the 2002 resolution authorizing force against Iraq was a blank check for the use of force against Iran without further Congressional authorization. Nor should the President think that the 2001 resolution authorizing force after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, in any way, authorizes force against Iran. If the Administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary, the President must come to Congress to seek that authority.

I am deeply concerned by the recent statements coming out of the Bush Administration. The Administration has asserted evidence of the Iranian regime's complicity, at the highest levels, for attacks within Iraq. Yet at the same time, General Peter Pace, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, questions these as assertions, in particular, the capability and intentions of the Iranian government. In this delicate situation, while making disturbing comments, is sending a third aircraft carrier to the Gulf.

The President owes an on-going consultation to this Congress and owes straight talk to the country. We have to get this right. The Congress should debate our current course, including the current silent-treatment policy toward our adversaries. I believe we can better understand how to deal with an adversary such as Iran if we have some direct contact with them. I think that can give us valuable information and better leverage to hold over the Iranian regime. And if we ever must, with Congressional agreement, take drastic action, we should make clear to the world that we have exhausted every other possibility.

[Alamom]

19. Thank you, SaveElmer. It's going to be a long year.....n/t

[SaveElmer]

21. That's ok...outside the DU bubble...

Democrats see this type of criticism for what it is!!!

[Alamom]

25. You are so right.. n/t

[Clarkie1]

67. Hillary will be asked questions on the IWR vote everywhere she makes an appearance.

You can be certain of that. Many Democrats are have concernes regarding her record.

[SaveElmer]

69. And the more she answers the lower her negatives go...

People understand and accept her explanation because it is the truth...

[Clarkie1]

71. We'll see. nt

[JNelson6563]

24. There are different brigrades

I think this OP is a member of the Everyone but Clark Sucks in Every Way Brigade.

Frankly I have no use for the keyboard commandoes in any of the brigrades.

Julie

[Clarkie1]

57. You think wrong.

I think Richardson would make a good president, and Obama has great potential.

I could enthusiastically support either.

I will not support war-enablers such as Edwards or Hillary. They have proven their incompetence and are unfit for duty.

[Clarkie1]

59. I supplied a link. It's still bad rhetoric. nt

[SaveElmer]

65. You cut and pasted...

Portions of the speech to make a point that was contradicted by the rest of her speech...

A speech, by the way, that has been praised by many, including some of the harshest critics of her IWR vote...

[Clarkie1]

66. Why did Hillary contradict herself, as you say?

I made no point except to post a portion her comments....comments you claim were contradicted by other parts of her speech. It is common practice to post only parts of a speech and supply I link.

If what you say is true, why is she inconsistent in her rhetoric?

[SaveElmer]

68. No...read what I said...

You took her comments out of context...when read in context they make perfect sense. The point you were trying to make was contradicted by the whole of her speech...

It is exactly the type of tactic I expect from the other side...unfortunately we see it here too

[Clarkie1]

73. All I did was post a portion of her speech and a portion of Clark's speech.

Why are you not complaining that I did not post all of Clark's speech as well?

You have confirmed that she contradicted herself. No point was made by me; it was her words I posted. If she made a point with those words that was contradicted by other parts of her speech, that was because she was inconsistent in her rhetoric....trying to have it both ways.

And it's not just me...reading through this thread I find examples of other Democrats and DU'ers being confused my her as well. For example,

"Clark comes across to me as much more consistent. For instance, Hillary says "make no mistake, Iran is a threat". Then says later that all the intelligence on Iran is all very questionable. So I don't get the sense that she takes a stand like Clark, I don't get the sense that I am getting her convictions, though I do like Hillary a lot."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3116053&mesg_id=3116160

[SaveElmer]

76. That is simply false...

And you know it...

You are digging a hole for yourself that you won't be able to climb out of...I would stop digging if I were you...you look foolish...

[Clarkie1]

77. LOL. I'll stop....but only because looks to me someone else has dug the hole.

And I think I'll just leave things right where they are with this little subthread and let the readers decide.

See ya! :-)

[SaveElmer]

78. Absolutely the best idea you have ever had...nt

[hippiechick]

18. Where's the 'none of the above' option?

:shrug:

[Dracos]

22. If you think Iran is Americas

friend then you have a lot to learn.I don't want a President who is a warmonger, neither do I want one who is so weak that will will all have to kiss Iran ass .

[oasis]

23. Solution: Hillary, president and Clark, Sec. of State. (eom)

[k_jerome]

28. sorry, he is not qualified to hold a position in a Democratic administration. nt.

[lojasmo]

29. I don't like either statement. EOM

[lojasmo]

30. I don't like either statement. EOM

[Geezus]

31. Why not? He is a democrat, and is one of our most intelligent

generals. He would make an excellent Secretary of State. I get the feeling that you don't really know him that well.

[k_jerome]

39. he says he is a Democrat and appears to have been a passable general....

that and Sec. of State are two very different things.

[Larry in KC]

33. I don't think you ARE sorry, but you ARE wrong.

And to amplify, that position should be President of the United States.

[k_jerome]

38. when he grows a set...

and steps up to the plate against the triple threat, we can discuss it.

[Larry in KC]

41. Hmm... I'll just pick two, almost at random...

"In March of 1999 as Slobodan Milosevic unleashed his army and police on the people of Kosovo, Gen. Wesley Clark, NATO's supreme commander, was given the first military mission of its kind, directing the forces of a 19 nation alliance to end a brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing. The stakes were monumental.

"Almost a million people had been driven from their homes solely because of their ethnic and religious background. Success would save lives, strengthen NATO, advance the cause of freedom, democracy and unity in Europe. Failure would leave much of the continent awash in a sea of refugees and end the 20th century on a note of helpless indignation in the face of evil.

"Wes Clark well understood the perils of the Balkans for he had already played a vital role in ending the war in Bosnia and beginning the long process of building a stable, multi-ethnic democracy in that country. He summoned every ounce of his experience and expertise as a strategist, soldier and a statesman to wage our campaign in Kosovo. He prevailed miraculously without the loss of a single combat casualty.

"At the apex of a long and distinguished military career that goes back to his outstanding performance as a cadet at West Point over 30 years ago, he was assigned a challenge many experts thought was mission impossible. Instead, thanks to Gen. Clark, we now can declare it mission accomplished."

-President Bill Clinton, August 9, 2000


"As the friendly force maneuvered through the treacherous region, it was suddenly subjected to an intense small arms fire from a well-concealed insurgent element. Although painfully wounded in the initial volley, Captain Clark immediately directed his men on a counter-assault of the enemy positions. With complete disregard for his personal safety, Captain Clark remained with his unit until the reactionary force arrived and the situation was well-in-hand. His courageous initiative and exemplary professionalism significantly contributed to the successful outcome of the engagement. Captain Clark's unquestionable valor in close combat against a hostile force is in keeping with the finest traditions of the military service and reflects great credit upon himself, the 1st Infantry Division, and the United States Army."

-From the Award of the Silver Star, as presented to Capt. Clark after he was wounded in battle in Vietnam, February 26, 1970


Somehow, I just don't think this is the sort of guy who fears the "triple threat".

I'm only going to bite once on this thread, though. You, of course, are slightly infamous for your appearances in threads of this kind. So, I'll grit my teeth and let you have the snide last word.

[k_jerome]

44. what does that have to do with the triple threat?

and whining about treatment your boy may get in a Clinton attack thread is rich.

[AX10]

53. Define this "triple threat".

[k_jerome]

54. Clinton-Obama-Edwards. nt.

[FrenchieCat]

111. Ha.....the 5 Conglomerate media generated fabricated candidates, you mean?

Them!

Right. I know....Winning a war and Negotiating a peace is no match for what those three have accomplished! :eyes:

Got it. :sarcasm:

[dogman]

62. He's more concerned about the mortal threat to this nation.

The triple threat will resolve with time. There is no time to let this administration destroy this country.

[BootinUp]

82. I would list his qualifications

to dispute your statement but it would slow the internets too much. I leave it to the readers who don't know about Clark to investigate or read my little blog entry "About Clark" for starters.

link in my sig line.

[Clarkie1]

86. Congratultions, you just destroyed all the credibility you had here.

If you had any credibility to begin with.

I will from this point continue my policy of not responding to your mindless postings.

[FrenchieCat]

110. Sorry K-jerome, but you are not qualified to make that determination......

Since you haven't provided evidence that you are smarter than even Bush to date.

Lightweights such as yourself don't get to decide....even if in your dreams you think you know something!

[fuzzyball]

27. The 2nd statement reminds me of Neville Chamberlain,

then Prime Minister of UK. If we had followed his path
of appeasement, the Third Reich would be the rulers of
Europe if not the world. Chamberlain also said that it is
far better to dialog with Hitler than start a war with Germany.

[Larry in KC]

32. Right... it's from the same guy who appeased Milosevic, right?

Well, actually, it's from the guy who has actually walked the walk of both negotiation and war (when it was a true necessity), and was a brilliant success in both.

[fuzzyball]

52. The islamic fanatics are a different kind of enemy than Milosevic and

if you don't see the difference, dialog with persons
who have endured living amongst islamic fanatics for
1300 years, mainly non-muslim majority countries in
the middle-east and south Asia.

[lumpy]

55. What non-Muslim majority countries in the mid-east and

South Asia are you talking about?

[fuzzyball]

108. The only democracy in M-E & Worlds largest democracy by

population...Israel & India both have 1300 years of history
with the islamic fanaticism.

[Clarkie1]

58. You are beginning to sound a lot like PNAC. Consider this.

I'll tell you what Osama Bin Laden wants. He want's to encourage us to invade Iran and Syria. He wants war. His strategy calls for the creation of zones of chaos and savagery. He wants more Iraqs, where there is no government, no police, and where he can go in and mastermind civil conflict and beheadings, because he thinks from that chaos that he can emerge with leadership. Why do we want to play his game when it's totally against our interests?

What we need is a new strategy that puts us right in the world, that looks at what's important for America's future. We want to back out of Iraq, talk directly to the people we disagree with who are governments, work together with those governments using information exchange, law enforcement, economic development and, only as a last resort, military force to eliminate the hardcore terrorists who can't see the light and come over to our side. It's fundamentally a battle of ideas, and we've got great ideas and theirs, theirs are throwbacks. Most people don't support them. There's probably, there's 6.4 billion people in the world. There's probably 3, 3 billion people who know about the United States of America and there's hardly any of those who don't say they agree with what we stand for, which is protection of the individual, right to have a family, to raise your children to do better. Surely we can win this battle of ideas against 50,000 hardcore fanatics who want to take the world back to the seventh century. Surely that's doable. It's not even a major object of American strategy.

<snip>

GENERAL WESLEY CLARK: Well, the truth is that most Muslims- I shouldn't say this, but I will. You know, do we have any Catholics here? (laughter) Okay. Do you know how, not to get too personal, but you know how some people only go to mass on Easter and Christmas Eve? You know what I'm talking about? There are a lot of people of the Muslim faith, I don't mean to insult anybody, but there are many who don't, they don't really actively work for the coming of the 12th Imam. In fact, as one of the people told me when I was in, going through one of the states in the Middle East, he said, "You Americans, you are so stupid," he said. "What you have done in Iraq is unbelievable." He said, "Iraq is a tribal, it's a tribal country. The tribes have all the power, and," he said, "members of these tribes overlap the borders and everything, and they're mixed between Sunnis and Shias." He said, "We've tried for over 100 years to take the power away from these crazy Mullahs, and the first thing you do is give them power and authority. You don't understand the first thing about Iraq," he said.

So, there are a lot of people there who don't want the Mullahs to have all that power. There are a lot of people in the Middle East who don't see it the way, a- as a religious conflict. These are people who lived in the United States, send their children here for education, own homes in the United States. They dress like Westerners. They talk like Westerners. They speak fluent English. They get stopped when they go through Kennedy Airport in New York for six hours, and they don't like it. But they want the same thing for their families that we want for ours.

Surely we've learned something beyond the 12th century. I know. Look, the way it works in the world is: People don't start fights mostly for ideas. They mostly start fights for other reasons, and then they drag on ideas to try to give them support. This war didn't begin as an Is- a war of Islam. Osama Bin Laden was angry at the Saudi government, because they stripped him of his citizenship. And then Ayman Al-Zawahiri was angry at the Egyptian government. And so, out of frustration because they couldn't get anything going against the Saudi or Egyptian governments, they joined forces and decided, 'Heck, if you're going to do this, why not go for the big banana. Let's go attack America.' They issued a fatwa in 1998 saying it was okay to kill Americans and now they've dragged in all this religious baggage. It was never there to begin with, and we shouldn't look for it.

I have no doubt that we can have a clash of civilizations and a refight of the Crusades if we want to, because we're proud of who we are. They're proud of who they are. It's natural. It's in the human heart. It's because you love your momma and daddy. You grow up that way. It's part of your family. It's what you believe in. It's why you're- you love the Crimson Tide and know the War Eagles, they're not nothing, (laughter) as we say in Arkansas. But we don't have to have that fight between Christianity and Islam, and we ought to do everything to prevent it.

http://securingamerica.com/printready/Univ_Alabama_061013.htm

[fuzzyball]

101. I disagree with invading Iran or Syria UNLESS the following happens:

You can not fight islamic terrorism by invading several
countries. That is a recipe for creating more terrorists.
You also can not fight islamic or any other terrorism by
building a cocoon around ourselves. In my opinion, the
enormous spending on Home Land Security department is not
productive. It is impossible to stop every sneak bombing.
You can't stop every automobile at check points, you can't
frisk every person entering shopping malls, and you can not
inspect every piece of cargo entering ports. That is colossal
stupidity.

Also, we can never completely eradicate islamic terrorism. The
best way to approach minimizing terror is to isolate where the
training and funding of terrorists is taking place. For example
911 terrorists all had direct training and support from Al qaeda
based in Afghanistan. Therefore the only correct response was to
take out the regime which was giving aid and comfort to known
terror leaders. Since Osama Bin Laden and his infrastructure was
demolished, there have been no major attacks in 5-1/2 years on US.
It was the correct response to 911, and actual results have
vindicated the response.

OTOH Saddam's Iraq was NOT running terrorist training camps or
funding terror to US. There was absolutely no need to execute a full
fledged invasion of Iraq. Even after Saddam refused to cooperate
fully with the inspectors, there was NO URGENCY to attack Iraq. That
was a foolish policy and we are now paying for the error. Not only
that but Saddam was a counterweight to Iranian ambitions. Once US
troops leave Iraq, watch Iran take over control of Iraqi oil.

Again, no need to attack Iran or Syria unless we have conclusive
evidence that these countries are preparing and training to forment
terroist attacks on the US. If Iran want's to build nukes, it is
their right, as much as US, Russia, UK, France, China, India and
Pakistan have a right to nukes. Mutual possession of nukes is a very
good deterrent to war. India and Pakistan fought 3 wars before both had
nukes and none since then. At this time I don't think there is any evidence
of Iran training terrorists to attack the United States. Until such
evidence is unearthed, it will be another blunder to attack Iran. I am not
worried about Syria because it does not have petro-wealth to mount a
serious build up of arms.

You are partially correct on Osama and Zawahiri's reasons. But never forget
that the actual terrorists recruited to carry out the mission were sold on
jihad and the fruits awaiting for them in Allah's heaven upon becoming
martyrs. Having grown up in middle of muslim populations and having personally
known hundreds of muslims during that period, I had a good opportunity to
see first hand how the religios angle is exploited.

[GreenEyedLefty]

114. This reply is pretty much buried, but I'll give it a try...

My neighbor is Iraqi and one day last summer we got to talking about the war. She talked about life under Saddam, the Baath party, and said I was the only "American" she'd ever heard say anything about oil. But I digress...

She said that the USA was foolish to get involved in the war and the Number One reason? Because Americans do not, and can not, understand Iraqi culture. It is about, first and foremost (and simply), loyalty to tribe and family. Iraqis here in America talk about being Iraqi, because national identity is what *Americans* understand.

So, the person Wesley Clark spoke to was absolutely, 100% correct. <"You Americans, you are so stupid," he said. "What you have done in Iraq is unbelievable." He said, "Iraq is a tribal, it's a tribal country. The tribes have all the power, and," he said, "members of these tribes overlap the borders and everything, and they're mixed between Sunnis and Shias." He said, "We've tried for over 100 years to take the power away from these crazy Mullahs, and the first thing you do is give them power and authority. You don't understand the first thing about Iraq,">

Frankly, I'm glad to finally hear serious talk, from both the left and right, about partition. The Kurds are already ahead of the game. Since this is pretty much off-topic, I'll stop now.

Interesting thread.

[ProudDad]

74. rush limpballs talking points

How illuminating...

:puke:

[fuzzyball]

100. Rush Limbaugh's ancestors were not even in the America's

since when mine had to withstand the onslaught of islamics from
1300 years ago. Please read the history of Islamics invasion
of India beginning in the 9th century.

[lumpy]

56. Iran is not nazi Germany. Iran hasn't invaded any

neighboring countries and has no ambitions to do so, unlike Hitler's Germny. Comparing General Clark to Neville Chamberlain is nothing short of ridiculous. Neville Chamberlain was appeasing high rolling British admirers of Hitler of which there were many. Quite a different situation.

[fuzzyball]

103. I am not comparing Clark to Chamberlain...I am talking about

not leaving all options on the table. If Clark is totally
against using force against Iran regardless of Iranian
involvement in Iraq then he can be compared with Neville.

But we don't have conclusive evidence that Iranian rulers
are directly involved in shipping high end explosives to Iraqi
insurgents, and until that happens it will be a mistake to
attack Iran.

On the nuclear bombs issue, Iran has the same right to possess
nukes as any of the others in the nuclear club. If Iran & Israel
both have nukes the it will be a good deterrent to war. For
example India & Pakistan fought 3 or 4 wars until both had nukes
and none since then.

[ProudDad]

72. Freeper talking points

How illuminating...

:puke:

[CTLawGuy]

113. Iran is also not serially invading countries

while the dialog is going on, so a comparison with Chamberlain is way off. I think no one would disagree that a military response to an unprovoked invasion is necessary.

[PresidentObama]

34. I prefer Clarks statement over Hillarys, as I also prefer Clark over Hillary. n/t

[Larry in KC]

35. I feel a bit of reflected pride in my general...

that immediately on reading the reasonable and practical words of the second quote, I'd have easily placed General Clark as the author, even without the byline.

I'm also nearing the point that I would have been able to place the first author, too. I'm not nearly so proud of that, as a Democrat.

[Cerridwen]

36. Get back to me after Clark goes through 15 years of having

his feet in the stirrups of the pelvic exam known as the U.S. corporate media political sphere.

Get back to me after he's been mocked, vilified and criticized non-stop for 15 years:

For baking cookies, for not baking cookies;
For wearing a headband, for not wearing a headband;
For wearing slacks instead of a skirt; for not wearing slacks instead of a skirt;
For appearing too fat in a skirt; for appearing too fat in slacks;
For looking *gasp* his age without makeup;
For working outside the home; for not working outside the home;
For having a daughter (child) who's ugly and having his children's birth ridiculed;
For 'standing by his (wo)man'; for not 'standing by his (wo)man';
For causing his spouse to <fill in whatever prurient crap you like>; for not stopping his spouse from <fill in whatever prurient crap you like>;
For murder; for tax evasion/fraud; for making money;
For supporting health care; for supporting the health care industry;
For being independent; for being gullible;
For voting his conscience; for not voting his conscience;
For listening to his constituency (polls); for not listening to his constituency (polls);
For being bi-partisan; for not being bi-partisan;
For every mistake or stumble his wife and children make; or don't make;
For being angry; for not being angry enough;...


I'm sure it won't bother him when 'friends' and 'allies' run and hide rather than 'stand by their man' as he comes under attack on a 24/7 basis.

I'm sure he'll be able to take the pounding 'cuz he's a "man's man"!

Of course, I'm also sure he'll never be held to the same standards.

[SaveElmer]

37. If I could recommend and individual post...

This would be it...nice job!

[k_jerome]

40. he won't even run...and if he does, he will challenge for...

middle of the pack.

[Cerridwen]

42. What's he waiting for?

Shouldn't he be out front and taking his drubbing with the rest of the contenders?

[k_jerome]

43. he won't run....if anything, he will support Clinton...

much to my dismay.

[Cerridwen]

45. You just pressed my 'irony button'.

I wonder what his supporters will do when their hero supports their enemy?

Oh, *sigh* I've become too cynical.

[k_jerome]

47. it is my opinion that he defers to Bill in these matters...

I may be wrong. We shall see.

[Cameron27]

90. Not all Clarkies think the same way

Cerridwen. :)

[Cerridwen]

96. But, of course.

I'm sorry I implied they did.

I was actually thinking of the Clarkies and other candidates' supporters who insist on bashing one candidate to make their candidate look better. After they've expressed and stirred up so much disgust against candidate X, how do they deal with it if candidate X gets the nomination. And how do they deal with it if their candidate not only doesn't get the nomination, but then comes out in support of candidate X.

I didn't make that thought very clear.

My apologies.

[Cameron27]

99. Thanks for replying,

I completely agree with you :thumbsup:

[BootinUp]

116. I just don't agree with your cynical

view of people on political boards. I actually think they have come to weigh in on issues due to a feeling of disenfranchisement with the status quo. If they find a particular candidate whose words and actions resonate with them or not they are here to let people know. To reduce it down to just bashing to make their preferred candidate look better is just just too cynical for me. Are there people who thats all that matters to them? Probably. But its the height of pomposity to presume you know who they are from a few internet posts.

[sandnsea]

46. Good point

I will give her a break on some of this - and oppose her based on centrist policies that favor the upper 10% instead of the upper 1% that Bush favors. She still leaves 90% out.

[Cerridwen]

49. And how's Clark's voting record on the issues?

What's he been saying on the record for the past 15 years?

[sandnsea]

50. He's been fighting for military families

Actually, he does have quite a record of going to bat for low-income military families. If he were a candidate, I'd take the time to compile his record of testifying in front of Congress for you. Since he's not, I don't care all that much about Clark. I do know the Clinton record though, and I think we can do better. I will give her credit for hanging in there after the hell the right wing and media have put her through though, that does show some real toughness.

[Cerridwen]

51. I agree on each of your points.

The thing is, it's easier to fight for <fill in the blank> when you've not got donors and the press breathing down your back. Behind the scenes versus up front with a target in your head create two totally different types of images.

That and the double standards are what I was trying to point out. Thanks for understanding.

:hi:

[dogman]

60. Is Senator Clinton's psyche more important than the lives of Americans?

Do you think Clark lived the life of Riley? He too has a great life story.

[Cerridwen]

75. Her psyche? Please re-read the post to which you replied.

Then if you'll read my other posts in this thread - you'll see my point was that we use different standards - one for women, one for men - one for someone who's been in the public eye and who has to address the concerns of many contributors and constituents versus one who's been behind the scenes.

[dogman]

80. And my point is, this is not about standards, this is about lives.

This is about war and peace. These two people have made statements about Iran.

[Cerridwen]

83. And the OP's point was about rhetoric - to which I replied...n/t

edit for wrong word.

[Clarkie1]

79. Ah, the Ol' "poor me, I'm the victim" defense.

Senator Clinton is responsible for her own actions, period.

[Cerridwen]

81. That's what's known as comparing apples with oranges.

Let's see how well Clark - or anyone else for that matter - 'stacks up' after 15 years of spin, spin, spin by both and all sides and see what it looks like.

Let's see how someone who has donors and constituencies and polls to account to, does versus someone who doesn't.


By the way - it is Senator Clinton; or if you're using the full name as you did with Retired General Wesley Clark - it is Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[Clarkie1]

84. Nope. It's comparing a calculating politician with a real leader.

I don't buy your sexist argument.

[Cerridwen]

87. And I'm saying, let's see what 15 years under the microscope

working within the 'belly of the beast' does to someone who's not yet done that.

I wasn't selling a sexist argument nor even an argument about sexism. I was noting a double standard for female politicians versus male politicians.

[Clarkie1]

88. Clark's not a male politician.

And he's endured in prevailed in far greater tests of courage and fortitude than mere political attacks.

[SaveElmer]

91. He ran for President...

He acted as an advisor for John Kerry, he spoke in front of the DNC...he is a politician...

Which is not a bad thing as far as I am concerned...but to say he is not is no longer true!!!

[Clarkie1]

93. No, he's not a politician.

Becoming President is not his priority.

[SaveElmer]

95. Politician...

pol·i·ti·cian
politician definition
n.

a. One who is actively involved in politics, especially party politics.
b. One who holds or seeks a political office.


Yes on both counts...Wesley Clark is a politician!!!

[Clarkie1]

104. There are literal definitions as well as connotations.

I have an advanced degree in English, so you really need not cut and paste the dictionary.

Clark is not a politician in the same sense as the other candidates. The only one that comes closest to being a non-politician is Obama, but even he is more of a politician than Clark.

Americans as a rule dislike politicians, and as a rule so do I. There are some I like, and some I'm neutral about, but most I'm not impressed with...in either political party. The word carries a lot of well-deserved negative connotations in the American vernacular.

When I say Clark is not a politician, I mean that he is not in the negative sense the word connotes. You need to dig a little deeper than a dictionary.

Edit:

If you insist on sticking with literal definitions, here's one from Webster's:

"frequently used in a derogatory sense, with implications of seeking personal or partisan gain; scheming, opportunism, etc."

[SaveElmer]

105. I disagree...

I have an advanced degree in American History, so I am perfectly comfortable saying that when a man runs for President of the United States, stumps the country on behalf of his party's candidates, and is invited and accepts invitations to speak at DNC candidate forums...he is a politician...not a career politician perhaps, but a politician nevertheless...and in fact that elevates him in my eyes.

Some of our greatest heroes were politicians...there are many politicians I admire today. Politician is not a dirty word.

[Clarkie1]

106. I disagree.

There are always exceptions to the rule (Lincoln, Jefferson, F.D.R., for example), but as a rule most politicians leave very little to be admired.

I don't think we disagree that much, you are just looking at the literal definition. I dislike politicians in the sense the word connotes.

Do you think in 08' it's more important to make histroy, or elect the best qualified person to lead America forward at this particular time in history?

[SaveElmer]

112. Well...

There have been more than a few exceptions:

John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Lincoln, Ulysses S. Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK, RFK, Jimmy Carter, Hubert Humphrey, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, Andrew Jackson....just to name a very few....

I view politics as an honorable profession. Just because some abuse it, like occurs in any profession, it is not diminished it in my eyes.

In '08, luckily we have an opportunity to do both(make history and elect a qualified person)...as I view Hillary and Richardson as supremely qualified, and I see very special talent in Obama...

I also have, and have always had a high regard for Clark...

So IMO we have a very excellent field this year

[Clarkie1]

118. I also view Richardson as supremely qualified.

Much more so than Senator Clinton, in my opinion.

[Clarkie1]

119. delete...dupe. nt

[Cerridwen]

92. Precisely.

He's not a politician. Though if he actually declares and runs - we'll see how long that lasts and how far it gets him.

Which is and has been my point. Let's see how bright and shiny he looks after about 15 years in the ring.

[AX10]

48. Wes Clark!

[BootinUp]

61. 28%....I'm shocked. n/t

[LWolf]

85. No to both. n/t

[AJH032]

89. I'd like to see the poll results if you didn't identify who said what

That would be more interesting.

[ShortnFiery]

94. I LOVE Kucinich but I'm falling "in like" with Wes Clark. :-) n/t

[Greyhound]

97. Should Dennis, as expected, fail to get the approval of our party's ruling elite,

Wes Clark is definitely my other choice. If he doesn't run, SoS or SoD should be in his future.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BootinUp]

115. .

replied to wrong post.

[Zhade]

117. Let's put it this way - I don't support Clark.

But his views on Iran are head-and-shoulders above Clinton's wannabe saber-rattling based on bullshit like the EFP nonsense.