Langtry

So far, the more centrist Democrats are not leading in the polls. I will respectfully disagree with you, however, that Howard Dean is a moderate. Compared to Kucinich, anyone would appear moderate, lol!

LOL, indeed! But as for Dean, he does have that "A" rating from the NRA behind him, and many of his positions lean towards giving more rights to individual states, including homosexual marriage. Yes, he did sign off on one, but far away from the public eye.

He seems quite moderate in my eye, but I admit to looking at the field from a seat near the liberal 15 yard line.

clark and fark. it rhymes.

/wesley clark, the candidate of choice for farkers.

happygirl, I'm with you - I'm an undefined moderate, and I was all over John McCain - He should still stay involved.

hmm...Clark/McCain?

Clark/McCain/Powell/Kerry - The Monsters of War administration. Coalition building ala the Big Brass Network. "We've got a social conscience, but we'll still put two in your dome if you get out of line."

you're = you are
your = of or belonging to the second person

/grammarNazi

Langtry
linewalker:
Civil liberties violator that threatens the very foundation of the US.

Can you please cite an example of how you, a law abiding citizen, has experienced the violation of your civil rights?

Oh of course, law abiding citizens have nothing to fear. Don't mind him. I understand there going to have a nice, torchlit rally later, sing a few songs, toast a few books, unless they can find some nice political subversives...

How the law as enforced by Herr Asscroft affects any one law abiding citizen now is not the issue, how it can be mistakenly applied or misapplied certainly is. The way one avoids losing rights is by pointing out when things threaten them. It works for the NRA, and if people stay the course and keep pointing out Asscroft playing fast and loose with the constitution, and using politics to set his priorities (Chong in Jail? For selling waterpipes? Jeezus, John, you butthead, don't you have some terrorists to track down or something?)

Honestly, (and this is ad hominem, so feel free to sqeak about it later) how any thinking person can believe that a guy who thinks tabby cats are agents of Satan, puts clothing statues ahead of protecting the country, and loses elections to a dead men can possibly be a qualified kindergarten teacher, let alone an attorney, and god forbid, Attorney general is pretty puzzling to me. Is it because you have the same imaginary friend?

Now, in other news, people have been poining out, and rightly, that this wasn't a neo-con attack on Clark, but rather the BBC. Fair enough. I was actually talking about the link that said war crimes, but, it looks to me that that link is actually to the left of Michael Moore. It may even be to the left of Ralph Nader, but somewhere between Moore and Nader, you hit extremists, and, at that point, I trouble telling them apart. They all scream nonsense and lie when it suits them. Never thought we'd have 'em running the country, thought.

Bush didn't break the Geneva Convention? Pick nits much? I understand the grounds that the administration is using to justify holding people at Guantanamo, and you who have decided that the fingernail adherence to the bent letter of the treaty doesn't constitute breaking it have missed the difference between treaty and law. A law you pretty much have to break to get in trouble for it (unless you've got a 9 figure pay package and spend time telling people about how bad corporate irresponsibility is), but you can get in quite deep trouble by bending treaties. Gives other nations the right to do the same to your citizens. Now, I know this administration is adept at talking a different game from each of its faces, but it's still a recipie for decreasing national security, not the reverse as claimed.

This is probably just a ploy to attract right wing voters whose thirst for the blood of innocents will never be quenched.

World Citizen -

sorry, but you are a clown... "PERSONS" is defined as a naturalized citizen of the us in the "14th". You are interpreting the amendment however "you" deem it necessary. Reading between the lines are we? The patriot act, simply are measures to ensure that none citizens, as well as US citizens are incapable of slipping through "War Crime" punishments. Its not like we've got preschool teachers in Guantanimo Bay - They're FARKING killers, supporters of oppression, and activists that readily support terrorism or mass deaths to promote their views.

What "safe" country do you live in??? I may not be a perfect system but we are the GOD DAMN strongest society on this planet, delivered through the eyes of doing what's right for the greater good. It's not about left right or being libritarian. Break it down to the basics; simple actions to preserve your safe future...

Don't like it - move to France

Drudge (the troublemaker responsible for this flamewar) reports the following:

Wesley Clark fundraised for Republicans in 2001, for Pulaski County Republican Party (Little Rock)... December 2001: Clark registers to vote in Little Rock as independent... But in 2003, now he is a Democrat?...

I wouldn't count him in anyone's camp if this is true.

TypoFlySpray:

Honestly, (and this is ad hominem, so feel free to sqeak about it later) how any thinking person can believe that a guy who thinks tabby cats are agents of Satan, puts clothing statues ahead of protecting the country, and loses elections to a dead men can possibly be a qualified kindergarten teacher, let alone an attorney, and god forbid, Attorney general is pretty puzzling to me. Is it because you have the same imaginary friend?

I'm sorry, but when someone resorts to emotional hyperbole such as "Herr Ashcroft and your paragraph above ...well, I just feel as if I cannot reason with such infantile nihilism (tabby cats?). When your knickers aren't in a twist over the evil Bush & Ashcroft, and you can debate on the merits, by all means ... engage me. Until then, I'm simply befuddled by your screed.

Necco and the Loup

Hooray for people like wrangler92, always avail with endless supplies of copy/paste leftist drivel, but not one opinion of his own.

I appreciate your opinion, now hear mine. I am a veteran, 9 years active duty. I spent 4 years as a Cav Scout and 5 years as an Intelligence Analyst in the US Army. I am an active member in Veteran's Advocates groups, such as the American Legion which pioneered the GI Bill, which I am currently using at the University of Maryland to obtain my degree in Computer Science and a Minor in Mathematics. I am also an active volunteer in the county I reside in trying to register people to vote. I do not discriminate on a partisan basis. I am a registered Democrat. One thing you will find, active duty members in the military closely align themselves with the Republican party because Republican administration generally see more value in military build-up defecit spending. One thing I have notificed, far and wide, Veterans who pay close attention to Veterans and Veteran's benefits and participate in Veteran's Organization tend to vote more democrat than republican. Republicans are notorious for cutting Veteran's benefits, such as retiree Medical Care (tricare), Life Insurance (VSGLI), VA Hospital Funding, and often fall back on their promises for funding Veterans Educational transition programs and job placement. If you believe I do not have an opinion nor facts to base an opinion on with regards to Veteran's Issues, I will provide you with specific Congressional actions on Bills and Propositions with the partisan voting breakdowns. I can also provide you with specific lies and cutbacks made by the Bush administration with regards to Veteran's Affairs.

I am proud to have served in the US Army. When people looked down on me while I was stationed at the 7th Infantry Division (Light) for being in the military, I don't remember many people flying the flag on their vehicle. I served with pride regardless of the appearance of the military in the community. After 9/11, there was a rush of patriotism, a population with love for their VOLUNTEER military. Now, after the volunteer military seemlessly executed it's war plans to topple the Hussein regime, the military has not found any of the Weapons of Mass destruction which were the stated and implied reason for the invasion. Our president told us that Iraq was in possession of weapons which could directly reach out and touch American lives at this very moment. This stated reason is apparently not true.

What is true is that once the military executed its war plans, the Bush-Cheney team awarded multibillion dollar contracts to two companies, Haliburton and Bechtel, to rebuild the Iraqi infrastructure. These two companies were responsible for a large portion of the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign donations, and Cheney was on the Haliburton board of directors. Cheney most likely directly benefitted financially from awarding the Iraq contract to Haliburton.

Meanwhile, our soldiers are dying, 1, 2, 3 a week, the death toll in Iraq after the Aircraft Carrier landing now exceeds the prelanding. We refuse to relinquish administrative authority in Iraq because Haliburton and Bechtel were given multibillion dollar, multiyear contracts.

Yet, when I have an opinion which appears to question the decision-making of the Bush administration, MY PATRIOTISM is questioned. The patriotism of a 30 year old who joined the military 2 weeks after high school graduation and stayed until he was 27 years old, always obeying orders, gladly serving, gladly leading troops, leaving my wife for months at a time on exercises and deployments, I will always be a Non-Commisioned Officer in the US Army at heart... but my patriotism is questioned... for questioning the Bush Administration.

I believe that the Bush Administration cares more about the corporations that gave at the campaign office than they care about the 8-10% unemployment rate. Relaxed pollution rules, silencing the little guy's opinion in the media by requesting changes in FCC rules, silencing the Head of the EPA because the SCIENTIFIC PROOF of global warming did not fit into the Bush party line that THERE IS NO PROOF. I believe that the Patriot Act is an oxymoron, it is the UNPATRIOT ACT. Conservatives blast the airwaves, screaming that Democrats only want your GUNS... meanwhile, the Bush Administration has authored a document which strips people of the right to due process, the right to protection from illegal searches and seizures, the freedom of speech, the guarantees to seperation of church and state... and on some higher moral plain, the basic rights guaranteed under a Federalism.

Now you will scream and call me the bleeding liberal, calling me the Clinton lover. I did not vote for Clinton in 1996, I voted for Bob Dole. I believe a respectable man should be in the White House. I do not believe George Bush, the man who commands our troops, yet went AWOL from 1972-1973, sells fear to the American public, and serves corporate America, not blue collar America, is a respectable man.

You say I do not have an opinion... I hope that the sum of my life and actions is more than an opinion, but rather the values of an everyday American who was proud to serve his country, proud to be an American from the Midwest, and not proud that blind followers of a tyrrant regime can convince people to question my patriotism.

/Veteran

/me stands up, waves his fist in the air in a circle, and goes "WHOOP! WHOOP!" after reading wrangler92's outstanding message.

Wrangler 92:

Actually, I thought your contribution to the discussion was, while I disagreed with it, interesting and valuable. I think Necco's comments do not reflect the view of most of the people on this thread, let alone those of us who, admittedly, lean to the conservative viewpoint.

I appreciate your service. I disagree with your assertions that Bush heads a "Tyrant Regime" and the contracts awarded to Bechtel and Haliburton place conspiratorial associations with corporations to the detriment of the economy and veterans' affairs. That duality aside, I urge you not to consider one poster's opinion to be that of everyone here.

the soviets were strong in the 1970s and 80s but it was all military . russia didnt really have any infastructure . all money went to military and the hockey team (lol) most people didnt even had a toilet to shiat in.

in rebuttal:

Is it morally, ethically, and politically correct to extend the US rights to the "world"? Is that what the 14th is saying? Is it then a step to promote our beliefs to everyone and a subtle approach of other democracies to follow... Is it? Is that what the politicians drafting the 14th meant?

You guys are worried about Islamic Fundamentalist that have been oppressing a religiously sovereign country. A group that was on the forefront of civil rights atrocities. And you want to say my "personal" civil rights are being violated.

Tell you what - go let your 16 year old daughter pound a beer with Jesse Jackson, your 14 year old son have a sleep over with the local priest, or better yet go drive a golf cart with Arianna Huffington to the CA governors office.

I'm done with this string - Mearly opinions right - well opinions are like assholes, everyones got one, they all smell like shi-ought, and they all can be wiped clean...

buh bye

Sir Spanksalot--yeah, but that military was scary as hell! Especially when I was going to school less than fifteen minutes flight time from the border.

Has the administration defined the legal status of the Gitmo prisoners? If they are terrorists, then they should be tried as such. If innocent, let them go. If guilty, shot. I have no problem with a military tribunal, since it might actually be more fair than a civil trial. (Media circus, stalling tactics on both sides of the trial, lack of objectivity in a civil jury.)

If they are POWs in a war against the Taliban, then they should stay where they are, and treated in a manner according to the rights of POWs under Geneva. (Which, last I heard, they were.) When the war in Afghanistan is over, then they can be released. Yes, that may be a long time, but we held Germans in WWII for up to five years and the North Vietnamese held our guys in Hanoi for nearly ten. I guarantee those guys at Gitmo are getting better treatment than the POWs in the Hanoi Hilton.

World Citizen--not disagreeing with you, but don't underestimate what the USSR had. Their equipment was crappy in some places, and actually superior in others. And they had a lot of it. I think NATO would have won, but it would have been damned close.
We never fought the varsity--thank God.

Thank you MorningBreath

just doing my part as a Farker of this great politcal machine call - "My Intranet"

2003-09-17 04:26:11 PM wrangler92



Stop using logic in political debates, you see what it gets you. Rabid hypocritical fanatics from either side who are more interested in finding out who lied more than trying to find the truth.


and for f**ck sake Fark, pick an image storage path and stick to it.

Be all that you can be!

let the mud flinging begin!

wrangler92 = teh roX0rz

wrangler92=The Man!

Well said, sir!

ansius:

let the mud flinging begin!

You're a bit late to the party, but the spirit is appreciated!

Wesley Clark is the kind of military man military men can't stand - a promotion-addicted political kissass. Bring him on. He won't beat Dean, anyway.

Apparently, Clark wasn't alone in this decision.


''I called the [Nato] Secretary General [Javier Solana] and told him what the circumstances were,'' General Clark tells the BBC programme Moral Combat: Nato at War.

''He talked about what the risks were and what might happen if the Russian's got there first, and he said: 'Of course you have to get to the airport'.

Wesley Clark is the kind of military man military men can't stand - a promotion-addicted political kissass. Bring him on. He won't beat Dean, anyway.

I suppose they really respect assholes that go AWOL for over a year when they already wormed their way out real military service by getting getting a cushy National Guard posting.

BTW, no disrespect meant to the current National Guard folks who are getting sent to Iraq.

While I think Clark may be able to bring a little more decorum to the cry-babies and finger-pointers that are the democratic candidates, I do think that he has his faults. Namely, his misunderstanding of the foundation of this country:

Secondly, the tax cuts werent fair. I mean, the people that need the money and deserve the money are the people who are paying less, not the people who are paying more. I thought this country was founded on a principle of progressive taxation. [MSNBC, June 15, 2003]

Sorry, Gen. Clark, but a progressive taxation system is actually a Marxist doctrine. You know, the whole "From each according to ability, to each according to need" thing.

And for those who think Bush is a terrible president because he stuck us in a quagmire, don't think Clark is any better.

Clark's own memoirs recall a conversation with Clark and General Joseph Ralston. Ralston expressed concern that NATO's (mostly Clarks') initial plan of a massive bombing campaign wouldn't persuade Milosevic to surrender:

"Well, it [threatening to bomb] will work," I said. "I know [Milosevic] as well as anyone. And it gives the diplomats the leverage they need."

"OK, but let's just say it doesn't. What will we do?" he asked.

"Well, then we'll bomb. We'll have to follow through," I said.

"And what if the bombing doesn't work?"

"I think that's unlikely, but in that event, I guess we'd have to do something on the ground, directed at Kosovo."

"And if that doesn't work?" he persisted.

"Well, then we keep going. But I think you have to work at the front end of the policy, on how to make it effective. Besides, I know Milosevic; he doesn't want to get bombed."

Conclusion? Apparently, Clark didn't know Milosevic as well as he thought. They didn't have a plan B immediately in place. All his eggs were in the air war scenario. No plans were immediately in place for insertion of ground troops. This led to a much longer conflict than anyone anticipated, and of course, lack of a true "exit strategy." Not to mention, Clark began getting second-guessed by his subordinates. Not only in regards to this story, but Gen. Michael Short also went behind Clark's back and instituted a major bombing campaign against Belgrade.


"NATO did not expect a long war. Worse, it did not even prepare for the possibility. Many alliance leaders deny that assertion to this day, but the evidence is overwhelming. And the blame begins with Washington, ultimately the most important architect of the air campaign strategy."
-- Ivo H. Daalder and Michael E. O'Hanlon, Winning Ugly

"In short order, it became clear that Clark though not he alone had miscalculated. A defiant Milosevic did not fold. The first several days' bombing succeeded only in stoking the fires of Serb nationalism and providing Belgrade with the excuse to accelerate its ethnic cleansing of Kosovo."
-- Andrew Bacevich, American Empire

This is probably just a ploy to attract right wing voters whose thirst for the blood of innocents will never be quenched.


or perhaps we can just look at his very impressive career/life
1.graduated top of class west point
2.rhodes scholar
3.served in vietnam
4.recieved purple heart
5. recieved silver star
6. graduated oxford
7. majored in economics
8. taught economics at west point
9. supreme commander of NATO



and know that he deserves to be our commander and chief b/c we are capable of thinking logically and not just led around like muppets. i think for myself, my party affiliation does not dictate my decisions when it comes to what is best for my country.

Personally, I think this whole thing is a non-issue. From what I have seen, Clark is better than several of the current Democrats running. However, I have yet to really see what he is going to campaign on, namely because he hasn't said it yet. Not to mention that little video clip of him calling an advisor on a cellphone to ask if he could answer a reporters question. Let's just say that the clip didn't exactly inspire confidence in his abilities.

Anyway, however, some of you farkers like to throw the word Neocon around like it was bling-bling. The problem is virtually every single one of you doesn't know what it means. Let's start with some commmon politicians labeled as Neocons:

Bush
Ashcroft
Cheney
Rumsfeld

What do all of these men have in common? The answer is that none of them are Neocons. A Neocon is defined as someone who is an interventionist (and believes in the exportation of Western style democracy throughout the world), not particularly small-goverment, and most importantly, is generally socially moderate or even socially liberal. Neocons don't want to ban your dirty magazines and quite a few of them support things (like gay marriage) that would make people like Pat Buchanan pass out from disgust. Shock and suprise, Ashcroft is about as far away from being a Neocon as you can be. You see, the reason they are called NEO conservatives is that they are different from the older style of conservatives, which is what the aforementioned men are (though granted, you could make a case that they really aren't that either).

The only one who may or may not be a Neocon, who is usually mentioned, is Wolfowitz. I personally don't know much about his personal political beliefs, and I'll take a guess that most of you don't either, so you really can't call him a Neocon either (though, I suppose there is anecdotal evidence that shows him in a Neocon light). If you want to see what a Neocon looks like, look up David Horowitz (though, he is a bit out there, but I can't really think of another bigger name Neocon right now, plus Horowitz is really one of the first notable Neocons anyway). Some claim that Neo-conservatism is much closer to the Trotskyism (though with some substitutions, ie Democracy for Communism) than classical American Conservatism.

sentinel28a

John Kerry did not win the Medal of Honor, nor was he a Navy Seal. Which isn't to say that he isn't a decorated war hero; he served in Vietnam as a Swift Boat Officer in the Mekong Delat and was awarded a Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, and three purple hearts.

Bob Kerrey, who is an ex-Senator and not running for president is the Medal of Honor winning Navy Seal.

I just realized that my explanation did not go anywhere near far enough in depth for it to make much sense. So, instead, you can read this terribly unflattering article about Neocons, which is actually a pretty good way of defining Neocons, albeit in a way that I doubt most actual Neocons would care for:

What Is a Neo-Conservative Anyway?

Anyway, enjoy.

well, i was curious about that whole thing and, OOPS! Looks like it just HAPPENED to materialize at a perfect time (remember, bush and blair are good buddies in this thing). I have met the man, saw him speak, and heard some very hard questions asked of him. He did well. Kosevo(sp), if you all remember, was one of the most odd and confusing NATO mission i have seen to date.
yes, the timing is fishy. the relations are fishy. Bush is fishy. He also has backed out on every "solid" claim he has made in the past 6 moths about this war. He has, thusly, lied to the American Public.
what makes him beyond manipulating such goings on in NATO?