Is General Wes Clark "General Betray Us II?" Is Ambassador Joe Wilson "Ambassador Betray Us?"

[wyldwolf]

Last week, Hillary voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the odious Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. On Monday, she joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress.

I support Hillary in both these votes. --- General Wes Clark


I was pleased to see that last Monday Hillary joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization from Congress. Last week, Hillary voted to support a non-binding resolution that designates the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. As a former diplomat, I have had considerable experience in the use of such resolutions to bring pressure – diplomatic pressure – to bear on a regime to rein in rogue elements. And make no mistake about it, the Guards are not only in operational control of Iran's policy toward Iraq and Afghanistan, where Iranian supplied munitions are costing American lives; they are agents of reaction and repression inside Iran. --- U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson

I'm curious to see when MoveOn.org "moves" their flock and the rest of the netroots against these agents of the nefarious Hillary Clinton. Clark and Wilson are the last people who should be discussing this issue. They are the completely unqualified to do so and any blogger on the left has infinitely more foreign policy experience.

[geek tragedy]

1. No, just Clinton ass-kissers. eom

[wyldwolf]

2. so you contention is "ass kissing" exempts one from "Betray Us" status?

[MannyGoldstein]

12. Did He *Write* It Would Be Betrayal In The Absence Of Clinton Ass Kissing?

I think not.

Therefore, your assetion is baseless.

[wyldwolf]

17. Did who write that? I've made no assertion. I've just asked a question

[MannyGoldstein]

20. You Asked A Question *And* Made An Assertion

"Do you think that ass kissing exempts one from Betray Us status" would be only a question.

Adding "so you contention" adds an assertion.

[wyldwolf]

27. LOL! Check out the question mark behind the complete sentence.

[Catchawave]

3. Yes and Yes.

I was very disappointed these great Americans couldn't keep it in their pants til after the primaries. Way too early to be endorsing.

[saracat]

4. I am really disappointed in them both.Clark originally said he was "disturbed' by that vote.

I guess they were "reigned" in. Just like Buschco, no diverse opinions allowed in Campaign Hillary.

[wyldwolf]

5. so they've betrayed "us?"

[saracat]

6. They have "sold out' I presume. I do not know their motives. I am saddened by their statements.

This is only "political expediency'.they are defending the "indefensible" and protecting their endorsed candidate.

[wyldwolf]

9. does "sold out" mean they've betrayed "us?"

[saracat]

16. You have to ask them.I rather think they have "betrayed"themselves.Why do you even care what

I think? For the record, I did not support the MoveOn Ad.I thought it was in "poor taste" and could have been done better.But again ,I am aware you have no respect for my opinion so why do you care what I personally think?

[wyldwolf]

18. Is that what it means to you?

[saracat]

21. Why do you care what I think?

[saracat]

26. Why don't you answer me? I would like to know why you care what I think?

[saracat]

28. Yoo Hoo! Can't you answer my question?

[wyldwolf]

29. yoo hoo! May I have dinner and put my baby to bed?

Why do I care what you think? I don't. But exposing hypocrisy like I've just done is fun.

[saracat]

34. Fine. Since you don't care, don't bother to keep asking me then.

It is quite the hallmark of the Hillary crowd.They really do not care what anyone thinks. Only what they think counts.That is why even a question by a voter is Iowa was treated with disdain.Hillary apparently doesn't care what voters think either. Some find this acceptable.You have not exposed any hypocrisy on my part.but your lack of interst in the thoughts of others says volumes about you.I just wanted you to admit that you didn't care what I thought.And you did.

[movonne]

25. Why are you harping on this....betray us...is there nothing that hillary

does that you won't support?? you sound like all the bush backers who will not listen..HILLARY IS NOT GOOD FOR THIS COUNTRY...we don't want the same policies that bush has been giving us..

[Cameron27]

7. Maybe they're both just senile,

like poor George McGovern. :eyes:

I don't agree with Wes Clark on the Kyle/Lieberman vote because it just wasn't necessary, but I'll never believe that he'd endorse anything that brought us closer to war with Iran.

[Windy]

24. We disagree with Hillary's stance and clark and wilson's support of Clinton

To try and incite an argument because informed people actually disagree with your candidate is not what a democracy is all about.

A lot of us here at DU do not agree with Mrs. Clinton's foreign policy moves over the last 8 years, and most recently, Lieberman/Kyl. For that reason some of us, frankly probably a lot of us, won't vote for her in the primaries. As we do not agree with her voting record on foreign policy issues, it would stand to reason that when someone who was as vocal as Wes Clark when it came to Iran and the stance of Joe Lieberman choses to continue to endorse Clinton, that we would also be taken aback. His new position seems to be a hypotrical change of his policy. By continuing to endorse Clinton, he has tacitly signed on to take action in a provacative manner rather than trying to deal with Iran diplomatically, without the baggage of declaring the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization. Her vote was an unnecessary action, which gives Bush the loop hole he needs to begin military action against Iran if he so chooses. In my opinion and the opinion of many here, her vote on Lieberman/Kyl showed incredibly poor judgment.

Frankly, there are a handful of rabid Clinton supporters on this website, Wyldwolf, you included, that seem to forget what living in a democracy means.

You might want to try to let the process work instead of inciting anger here.

[MGKrebs]

40. Another possibility is that you are just mistaken.

It seems that some people just have to reflexively take the opposite side of any issue as Hillary Clinton, which is a less than thoughtful way to determine ones positions.

The IWR could have resulted in Saddam resigning or avoiding conflict somehow, and in fact we did learn recently that he allegedly offered to resign, but was turned down by Bush anyway. So if that story is true, the IWR probably worked.
http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/3178

The Iran resolution is a step in a process, and a resolution IS an instrument of diplomacy.

[Windy]

45. it absolutely is not. Its a step toward war and even more so

in light of who is still running the country. Being a good leader is looking at all sides of the issue. HRC has again placed her trust in an administration that doesn't deserve to be trusted. She has once again given them legislation to potentially hang their hat on...legislation that was clearly unnecessary!

Mrs. Clinton clearly has shown that she lacks judgment when it counts.

[Maribelle]

32. General Clark's words supporting Hillary's votes on Iran were remarkable and extremely informative

Like many of you, I am concerned about what I am reading and hearing about the apparent interest in parts of the Bush White House to go to war against Iran. And like you, I believe that we Democrats must do everything we can to prevent Bush and Cheney from sending this country into another preemptive war. (I invite you to visit my website StopIranWar.com )

Fortunately, Hillary Clinton has been on the front lines in opposing any effort by the Bush administration to sidestep the Congress. Eight months ago, she took to the Senate floor to warn the President that he could not attack Iran without specific congressional authorization. She said then, long before other members of Congress stood up, "If the administration believes that any, any use of force against Iran is necessary the President must come to Congress to seek that authority."

Last week, Hillary voted for a non-binding resolution that designates the odious Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in order to strengthen our diplomatic hand. On Monday, she joined Senator Jim Webb in co-sponsoring a bill that would prohibit the use of funds for military action in Iran without specific authorization by Congress.

I support Hillary in both these votes. She is committed to ending the unilateralism of the Bush-Cheney administration. She is a strong supporter of direct nuclear talks with Iran, because she believes that direct dialogue with our adversaries is a sign of strength and confidence, and a prerequisite to achieving America's goals and objectives.
She has been one of the leaders in the Senate in standing up to the Bush administration's dangerous approach to Iran. And as president she will reject the Bush administration's ideologically blinkered vision of the world that denies America the tools and the flexibility necessary to build and more peaceful and secure world.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gen-wesley-clark/i-support-hillarys-posit_b_67170.html

[alfredo]

8. I think the second vote was to make sure bush doesn't use the first

as a go ahead for preemptive war against Iran.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Self Delete

[seriousstan]

11. No, everyone has been threatened and blackmailed. Just like Pelosi

I know this for a fact, I read it here.

[wyldwolf]

14. lol

[BelgianMadCow]

13. They are not. Who said so? Strange comparison

Petraeus had the key to the war in his hands and let himself be used politically.
What the other two did is of far smaller consequence.

[daninthemoon]

15. Is there anyone left who doesn't want another war? In bushler's

world, what could possibly be different in this vote than the one on Iraq? He and darth cheney will use the "terrorist" label as all they need to commence the bombing. Clark and Wilson both? I swear, I just don't get it.

[MrSlayer]

19. Two men I admire greatly.

No, they aren't betrayers, they know foreign policy inside and out. It galls me that they've hitched their wagons to Hillary but I cannot suddenly ignore their credibility simply because I dislike her. I trust Wes Clark implicitly.

[ima_sinnic]

22. my admiration for Clark evaporated with that endorsement

--I feel that he either has been bought off, has been threatened, or just does not have as great judgment as I thought. In any case, I just don't admire him that much or listen to what he says anymore.

[DemBones DemBones]

23. Has any blogger on the left claimed

s/he had" infinitely more foreign policy experience" than General Wesley Clark or Ambassador Joe Wilson?

[Lucinda]

30. Yeah...whadda they know anyway! Posers!!!!!

Thanks for posting this wyldwolf...I hadn't seen the Wilson quote! :thumbsup:

[Clark2008]

31. LOL!!!

Um... Wes Clark can have an opinion contrary to mine... I am not him. He is not me.

Clark's opinion has not put thousands in harm's way - it's quite a bit different.

[Flea]

33. Funny, Wes started stopiranwar.com

1: Iran is not a threat to the United States of America. They can not attack the U.S. mainland.
Plus they havn't shown any history of being aggresive. Repeat: Iran is not a threat to the United States.

2: Hillary and her "allies" are just panding to the AIPAC and the military industrial complex. Do you really think she will actually do the wishes of the American people? She is already bought and paid for.

3: Israel can easily defend itself with over 200 nuclear weapons and a far superior military.

[dionysus]

35. utter flame bait tripe

par for the course.

[wyldwolf]

38. I suggest you alert the mods, then.

[Totally Committed]

36. I hope you remember this thread if she is nominated... and names Clark her VP...

You're gonna be eating these words, I think.

TC

[wyldwolf]

37. which words will I be eating?

[Rhythm and Blue]

39. Oh, I certainly agree.

Anyone who supports a politician's yes vote on a non-binding resolution claiming that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard supports organizations that engage in terrorism ought to be hanged for treason. It is really the only way to stop Hillary before she manages to get us in a tit-for-tat verbal-sniping affair with Iran--or worse, a heated exchange of explosive accusations.

If we don't immediately denounce everyone who has so much as applauded at one of her speeches, we'll soon find ourselves in a full-blown war of words.

[wyldwolf]

42. I guess I need to use the "sarcasm" tag for those who don't know me well.

[Rhythm and Blue]

43. I fully understood the sarcasm,

and was agreeing with your underlying point by engaging in similar sarcasm.

[wyldwolf]

44. ha ha! I guess you need to use it, as well! And welcome to DU.

[BootinUp]

41. What follows is a discussion about the loony left and foreign policy smarts

:eyes:

On edit: Come and get me! <G>