Josh Marshall on Clark and PNAC

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/oct0301.html#100203302pm

The author, Ira Stoll, got Bill Kristol to say "It's really a little bit crackpot. I don't think Clinton was really following the PNAC script. We called for regime change. Last I looked, Saddam was still there when Clinton left. Maybe he got confused."

Stoll also got Randy Scheunemann --- less publicly known, but an important neocon voice in DC --- to say Clark's comments were "bizarre." "The Clinton administration was on the verge of cutting a deal with Saddam. If they would have followed the Iraq policy of PNAC, they would have empowered the Iraqi opposition instead of going around denigrating it. This is a guy who could barely win a war in Kosovo. Now Wesley Clark is running for president by running against a think tank?"

<snip>

The details of all this are too complicated to go into at the moment. But Clark's point isn't "crackpot" or "bizarre." He's got it exactly right. The analogy to the late Carter administration is quite apt. And Kristol, Schhuenemann and Stoll each know it. Indeed, they were each in their own way part of it.

<snip>

But when you see these slashing words from the neocons against Clark, it's not because he's "confused" about anything. It's because he's got their number. And they know it.

<snip>

Also a small blurb on how Howard Dean is getting smeared by the right as well. Interesting reading (and if you're really bored, he's got some good analysis of TraitorGate as well).

I fucking love it. Way to go, Wes.

Europe note: EVERYONE over here seems to know about PNAC, and they are ON FIRE about it. I'll be coming back to Belgium in April to participate in a mock tribunal against PNAC that has some seeeeeeerious heavy-hitters coming out to play. Wes does well with the allies to talk about this.

Smart, smart man we got here.

This is an editoral, of an editoral! Whats the point?

You're right, we *never* do that around here. :)

This looks more like a cover job for Clark's assosation with the PNAC croud. And a poor one at that, as it tryes to defend a straw man.

But that dosn't seem to stop the Clark suporters from swooning at the third hand reporting of an editoral. Clearly, some folks are easly distracted by the shiny objects that is Clark's medels.

Do you ever visit his web site or read his stuff in Washington Monthly and elsewhere?

Since there are some who are convinced that Clark is a PNAC plant, I thought it relevant to point out evidence to the contrary. If you didn't care for the source, that's fine; I really don't care either way.

he has, on record stated that he liked Perle, Cheney, Feith and wolfie, all PNACers. He further stated that he would like to work w/them again.

http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2003/03/24/clark


I find nothing to like about the empire controlling obsessionists and it makes him suspect that he does.

is good friends with Orrin Hatch. Does that make him suspect?

for Democratic causes.

I like to see that in my presidential candidates personally speaking.

Clark is also a master at media manipulation. He wrote about it in his book 'waging modern war.'

I don't personally think he's a plant, or evil or??? But, I'd prefer a track record (in politics) before he takes the #1 slot.

JMHO, don't mean to but in...

...but I guess a small faction of DU decides how far back one must have an 'established' record of fighting for Democratic causes to be legit. :eyes:

And it's always JUST far enough to make Clark ineligible. Further, when you point out that he supported Clinton and Gore AND voted in the AR Dem primary in 2002, THAT'S not good enough because he had decent personal/working relationships with these folks at some point, and said so.

They remind me of Cotton Mather and the "Burn the witch!" mentality they themselves would profess to deplore. Can we spell 'hypocrite'? :eyes:

...but, like you said, his eligibility is JUST out of reach to be legit.

I never said I would not vote for Clark if he gets the nomination.

I simply said I'd prefer he start in a 'lesser' position with a political record beyond 'voting' for Gore.

"And it's always JUST far enough to make Clark ineligible."

Anything more than a few weeks makes Clark ineligible, because up to teh day he declared he was a registered lobbyist working for henry kissinger.

But I guess that doesn;t matter because he reads the right script... and nobody working for Henry Kissigner would ever lie about something like rigging an election, right?



"Further, when you point out that he supported Clinton and Gore"

He also supported Bush and Reagan in 2001, so who Clark decideds to give his support to this week doesn;t mean a whole hell of a lot.

To me that simply proves he's a two faced liar who will support whoever he thinks will get him the best deal.


" AND voted in the AR Dem primary in 2002,"

Or so he claims. Seems odd he'd vote in the dem primary, yet not register as a dem.


" THAT'S not good enough because he had decent personal/working relationships with these folks at some point, and said so."

A decent working relationship... nice way to spin the fact that Clark heaped praise on them and said he wanted to work with them again.

If any other candidate said that shit, you'd have a fit over it. If lieberman turned out to be working for kissinger or Dean said he liked the PNAC crew and wanted to work with them... there would be a shit storm.

:crazy: :scared:

Got any links/info? I'm very curious about this... Thanks!

Clark was also a big corporate shill lobbyist.
Also a senior adviser at CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Fax 202-775-3153 ]

2000 CSIS budget, $16 million,

CSIS Affiliates: The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.
CSIS Board, Counselors, and Advisers Board of Trustees Chairman Sam Nunn Senior Partner, King and Spalding Vice Chairman David M. Abshire President, Center for the Study of the Presidency, and Cofounder of CSIS Chairman, Executive Committee Anne Armstrong* Former U.S. Ambassador to Great Britain Members George L. Argyros Carla A. Hills Betty Beene Ray L. Hunt Reginald K. Brack Henry A. Kissinger William E. Brock Donald B. Marron Harold Brown Felix G. Rohatyn Zbigniew Brzezinski Charles A. Sanders William S. Cohen James R. Schlesinger J. Michael Cook William A. Schreyer* Ralph Cossa Brent Scowcroft Douglas N. Daft Murray Weidenbaum Robert A. Day Dolores D. Wharton Richard Fairbanks Frederick B. Whittemore Michael P. Galvin* R. James Woolsey Joseph T. Gorman Amos A. Jordan, (Emeritus) John J. Hamre* Leonard H. Marks, (Emeritus) Robert S. Strauss, (Emeritus) *Member of the Executive Committee Counselors William E. Brock Henry A. Kissinger Harold Brown Sam Nunn Zbigniew Brzezinski James R. Schlesinger William S. Cohen Brent Scowcroft Richard Fairbanks Senior Advisers J. Carter Beese Amos A. Jordan Bradley D. Belt John Kornblum James M. Bodner Robert H. Kupperman Stanton H. Burnett Laurence Martin Richard R. Burt Thomas F. (Mack) McLarty Wesley K. Clark Walter Slocombe William K. Clark, Jr. Robert Tyrer Arnaud de Borchgrave Anthony Zinni Diana Lady Dougan Luis E. Giusti Fred C. Iklé (Distinguished Scholar in Residence)

Nope! Don't see it. I do seek that Clark is an advisor to a group that Kissinger chairs... a nonpartisan and nonprofit group, by the way!

NOT a senior member.

Not a Counselor.

An advisor. A role so important (not) that Clark doesn't even get a bio on their homepage:

http://www.csis.org/about/index.htm#4

What is Clark's role?

He works with the Center across the full range of its programs, concentrating particularly on international security.

http://www.csis.org/press/pr00_42.html

He advises pro bono (free)

http://www.afocr.org/directors/clark.htm

What does CSIS do?

Among other things like world economics, security, and trade, they research embryonic stem cell research, cloning, DNA forensics, and gene therapy.

http://csis.org/about/index.htm#3


So, try as you will, there is nothing at all sinister about this...

Kissinger is on the board of trustees of CSIS, but I just checked with their web site, and it said Sam Nunn was chair of the board.

Now, Sam Nunn is also on the board of Coca Cola. Salma Hayek is doing ads for Coca Cola. Ms. Hayek was in "Desperado" with Antonio Banderas. Antonio Banderas was in Mask of Zorro with Anthony Hopkins
Anthony Hopkins was in Mission: Impossible-2 with Tom Cruise
Tom Cruise was in A Few Good Men with Kevin Bacon.

That's six degrees, right? Or is it seven?

Clark was also 'fighting' for Republican causes speaking on behalf of Bush and the gang as you well know.

..democrats are SO completely the same! :eyes:

:eyes:

By the way, we don't know if Clark donated to Reagan and Bush Sr. do we?

... if Clark or Dean or whoever donated to Reagan and Bush Sr. do we?

Last time I checked the Constitution, it layed out the qualifications for President.

Clark is qualified via the Constitution. Just not by me personally ;)

As I said Wyld ABB for me. But, we'll have to let the chips fall where they may.

Show me another Democrat running for president who has said:


"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."


"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."

"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."



"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."

the day he declared he wanted to run for the dem nomination.



I am amazed how many folks are willing to get behind Clark, despite his being a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger, being a co-director of the NED with Frank Carlucci, and the fact Clark was heaping praise on Reagan and Bush's leadership at a repuke fundraiser in 2001.

If Dick Cheney came out tomorrow and said he was a democrat, I bet half you Clark supporters would line up behind him to support him because "Cheney is a democrat who can win." All he’d have to do is read the right script and you folks would be all for him.

“So what if he was a republican, that was a whole month ago.”

I like Howard Dean a lot and am rooting for him, but it would be a wonderful thing if the DU Deanies would stop sliming the other candidates with spin and innuendo. It's starting to make me not like Dean, and that's not really fair to Dean. Want to work on that?

Same Shit Different Day!



You folks really need to refine your arguments



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

Along with a handfull of other DU'ers I'll just repost this from another thread:

In The Circles GENERAL Clark Moved In

there were/are alot of the PNAC, Neo-Con crowd... that means these people were his PROFESSIONAL
ASSOCIATES.

Should Justice Breyer be shunned because he serves on the Supreme Court which is dominated by Right
Wingers and which handed the election to Junior?

Should Justice Breyer be shunned because he doesn't insult his fellow Justices like Scalia when he speaks
at conferences?

Should Justice Breyer be condemned because he may speak highty of his "pal" Clarence Thomas when
interivewed?

Breyer Choose To Be Associated With Scalia

As much as Clark choose to be associated with PNAC'ers in the Pentagon.

Breyer's professional and career path as a jurist meant associating with others who may have radically
different viewpoints than himself. So he shouldn't have pursued that path because of this?

Because the Military/Pentagon is dominated by PNAC'ers or Republicans, then you think a Liberal shouldn't
join?

The PNAC'ers don't OWN the military just like they don't OWN the courts.

They can however, try and stack the military's top brass and the Courts with idealouges.

It is a just as much a mistake to abandon the Military to Rightwingers as it would be to abandon the Courts.

Both ideally should be above Partisan Politics.

Very articulate... =D

if Clark is the nominee

I only vote for real Democrats, not the expedient flavor. A Democrat that does not fill in his affliation on his Democratic presidential run FEC doc, UNK. A Democrat that has a proven Democratic track record. A Democrat that isn't associated w/NED, SOA, Axciom, Stephens Corp and likes and would work w/again w/PNACers. A Democrat not backed by the DLC.

But, if my prediction is correct, I won't have to worry about any of the above.

Then you are not a real Democrat. Plain and simple.

Real Democrats don't vote for Lobbyists for Henry Kissigner.


You Clark supporters have been so cowed and convivned we can't win without those shiny stars... that you're willing to vote for a man who is CLEARLY not a democrat.



I'll even plug my nose and vote for Lieberman, but there is no way in hell I will vote for Clark.

We're all incapable of telling Democrat from Republican or choosing a candidate without your advice/approval. When I need a parent or a boss, I'll be sure to give you a call.

about why Clark was working as a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger up until the day he declared he was running for the dem nomination?

What democrat works as a lobbyist for Henry Kissinger?


How can you claim that someone is a democrat when they went to a republican fundraiser and said:

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."

and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over.........................

Your :tinfoilhat: is on too tight and impeding cerebral blood flow...either that, or someone needs to pull your string and see if you can come up with a new mantra.

Ka-ching...adding another dollar to the Clark campaign pot.

your prediction may not be correct

First, since the DLC will back the nominee, I take it you won't be voting for the democrat anyway.

In the last ten years, I've withheld my vote from the democratic nominee twice. One was a gubernatorial candidate I didn't care for, but four years prior she bolted the party to run as an independent against the democrat running for governor. The second time was a county councilman who beat his kid up at the bowling alley. I don't include my Texas Nader vote to be against the nominee, since I did it to fulfill an agreement with an Oregon socialist to vote for Gore.

Nader democrats pick up their ball and go home. Real democrats stick.

I will be a loyal Democrat and stick w/my party.

thing that you have in your signature.

Give the guy a freekin' break and give me
positions Clark has taken that are conservative
in terms of the issues. And I am not talking about
saying nice things about Republicans because frankly
that doesn't count. All politicians say nice things about
each other. It's called diplomacy.

Basically, you keep calling Clark a conservative
by association. I want you to go spend the time
and come up with a handful of issues/policies that
Clark has come out on and explain why they are
conservative.

Here I will give you a few starter topics,
you can go and fill in the blanks.

Choice:
Affirmative Action:
Repealing tax cuts for the rich:
Multi-lateralism:
Force as last resort:
Free Speech:

in any of my posts about clark, have I called him a conservative.

If he is "not a democrat" and not a "conservative" then
in plain English with no spin, what is he to you? What
label do you feel applies? I guess unless you clarify
all I think you are saying is that he is "anything but
a Democrat".

I read somewhere that Clark has been wearing a pin that says "Dissent is patriotic" and he hammers that in every speech. Have you read the Seton Hall speech...given long before the draft movement? Its in there too.

BTW, in his speech to the military reporters and editors, Clark listed the countries PNAC planned to take out. Whew.

So_Europe is buzzing. Again, I'm not surprised that Clark is pushing this point. Clark has spent years in Europe and made many friends.

You ask for his conseravtive positions, and say that his heaping praise on conservative leadership is not enough... yet CLark wouldn;t even admit what party he was in until a few weeks ago.

He wouldn't take positions. He has no record of policy to prove the answers you ask for... that's the whole fucking point.

All we have to go on is what CLark has said in the last few weeks, which is in direct contradiction to what he previosly said.


How about you show me any democratic positions Clark took BEFORE he was running for the dem nomination?

Oh and I did find one example of his conservative war mongering and free speech...


Clark supports killing journalists and civilians...


Extra! July/August 1999 Legitimate Targets? How U.S. Media Supported War Crimes in Yugoslavia - By Jim Naureckas
NATO justified the bombing of the Belgrade TV station, saying it was a legitimate military target. "We've struck at his TV stations and transmitters because they're as much a part of his military machine prolonging and promoting this conflict as his army and security forces," U.S. General Wesley Clark explained--"his," of course, referring to Yugoslavian President Slobodan Milosevic. It wasn't Milosevic, however, who was killed when the Belgrade studios were bombed on April 23, but rather 20 journalists, technicians and other civilians.



Clark supported the war in Iraq, although he now claims otherwise...

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, September 19, 2003; Page A05
HOLLYWOOD, Fla., Sept. 18 -- Retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark said today that he "probably" would have voted for the congressional resolution last fall authorizing war, as he charged out into the presidential campaign field with vague plans to fix the economy and the situation in Iraq.


CNN (1/21/03) "I probably wouldn't have made the moves that got us to this point. But just assuming that we're here at this point, then I think that the president is going to have to move ahead, despite the fact that the allies have reservations."

CNN, 2/5/03): "The credibility of the United States is on the line, and Saddam Hussein has these weapons and so, you know, we're going to go ahead and do this and the rest of the world's got to get with us.... The U.N. has got to come in and belly up to the bar on this. But the president of the United States has put his credibility on the line, too. And so this is the time that these nations around the world, and the United Nations, are going to have to look at this evidence and decide who they line up with."

but not the general election...why bother?

I wasn't voting in the general?

for?

and working for Henry Kissinger as a lobbyist up to the day he declared he was running for the dem nomination.

DO you beleive that Clark was lying when he said:

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."


"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."

"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."



"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."


Or do you think he really beleived that, yet has now suddenly had a change of heart?

Nader democrats pick up their ball and go home. Real democrats stick.

You noticed that too

Can I steal that line for later?



CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

He was no Democrat when he helped
hand Bush the Presidency

as most DUers know, I voted for Gore.

and so did I.

"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."


Yet CLark claims to have voted aginst Bush I.


So was Clark lying to them, or is he lying to us?

Funny, Clark says he voted for GOre, but in 2001 he was helping repukes raise money... some democrat.

"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."

"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."

"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."

"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."


He also is/was a lobbyist for Henry Kissigner.

Also a senior adviser at CSIS - (Center for Strategic and International Studies, 1800 K Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 Fax 202-775-3153 ]
2000 CSIS budget, $16 million,
CSIS Affiliates: The International Councillors, a group of international business leaders chaired by Henry Kissinger, meets semiannually to discuss the implications of the changing economic and strategic environment. The Advisory Board is composed of both public- and private-sector policymakers, including several members of Congress. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Carla Hills cochair the board. The Washington Roundtable meets three to four times a year with members of Congress, executive branch officials, and other Washington experts to discuss pressing policy issues of the day. The Houston and Dallas Roundtables bring together local business leaders and CSIS experts to discuss current international political and economic trends.



I don't vote for Kissinger toadies.

Here's a thread that shows you are pretty much just an agitator.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=474693

Ask the democratically elected leaders of Venezuela and Brazil. They can tell you.

It is a foundation that raises corporate money which is used to fund efforts to overthrow legitimately elected leaders in selected countries in this hemisphere or to prop up compliant dictators in this hemisphere.

Yeah, connections to NED matter.

I will donate $500 to his campaign
because I love my country too much to let
petty bullshit get in the way. Actually,
I will do this no matter who wins the nomination.

Bush is a fucking nightmare. Fuck anyone
who would put their pride before getting that
jackass out of office.

Let's start acting like we want to win this thing.

" Fuck anyone who would put their pride before getting that jackass out of office."

That's what I'm talking about!!!

ABB!

:shrug:

Should the Dems tell him they don't want him caucusing with them or have him out campaigning for Dem candidates because of that? Give it a break for a while.

Don

:eyes:

for president on the Democratic ticket?

not President of the Democratic Party.

Why don't you get that? There is a big difference.

I believe parties exist to help the candidates and the
country, not the other way around.

Only 37% of all Americans feel strongly partisan, the
rest of us (63%) just want the best folks leading the
country.

Why don't you get that?

I have been a registered and voting Democrat for thirty one years. I want the president in 2005 to be a Democrat.

Why don't you get that?

Are you a registered Democrat?

So what of it.

I didn't know you were the "Democrat Police"

I merely asked if you were a registered Democrat.

I certainly hope that the Dean people will not stoop to accepting any votes other than those that come from PURE Democrats....

If someone has a problem with Clark running for the dem nomination when he is an independent, how the fuck do you spin that into Dean not accepting votes from non democrats?

Talk about ignorant and desperate spinning.

We're talking about the nominee, not the voters. The problem is not with independents in general, but rather a general who is independent and yet claims dishonestly that he is a democrat as he tries to get the dem nomination.

Get it?

Nobody has any problem with middle of the road voters, independents, even moderate republicans who want to vote for the democratic candidate. So stop trying to change teh subject from Clark not being a democrat to this BS claim that these groups of voters are somehow hated or otherwise unwanted.

I hold my party nominee to a higher standard than i hold the average voter, thank you.

Being a Democrat is a state of mind. Talk about ignorant spinning and avoiding the issue. I hold my duty to the country and the Constitution higher than party loyalty...the best candidate is the best candidate. Period.

The most important task that we have right now is to get rid of Bush. Anyone that says that they will not vote for Clark if he is the eventual nominee, has no right to question anyone else or to claim the title of Democrat.

The dem presidential nominee will be the one who carries our banner... and i want that to be a real democrat. I find it odd that when Dean is getting all this support from the people who want their party back, suddenly the establishment throws out Clark and say party doesn't matter, it's just paper work.


But thank you for admitting that Clark isn't a Dem, he is at best an independant and at worst a flat out repuke plant.

I've noticed a sudden change in the Clark Corps spin on Clark... he is no longer the great progressive liberal hope the draft clark people were presenting him as, now he is the centrist general who is above and beyond petty partisanship, and greater than simple party affiliation. He doesn't have to be on our side, because sides don't matter, and having a party affiliation is just dumb.

Can you show me where it is in the post you replied to? Thanks.

However the admission was foud in the attempt to respond to criticisms of Clark not being a dem by down playing the importance of party... which seems to be the new meme.


"Only 37% of all Americans feel strongly partisan, the
rest of us (63%) just want the best folks leading the
country."

In other words: So what if Clark isn't a dem, party doesn't really matter.

The correct interpretation is that there are qualifications that are more important than party. If Zell Miller ran, would he be a good candidate? He's a Democrat, after all, and that's what's important. Party is important, but there are other qualifications that are also important. That's not the same thing as your 'party doesn't really matter.' No one except you has said that, and your cheap attempt to pretend otherwise is yet another example of gross Deanhonesty.

And last I checked singing with someone is hardly the same as going to a repuke fundraiser and saying:

"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."


"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."

"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."



"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."

it only took till the second post to start the bash, thats really pathetic.


CLARK FOR PRESIDENT
"I'm going to give them the TRUTH and they'll THINK it's hell."
So I Built This Web Site
Read The Book

If some in this thread want to put their pride before their country, so be it. Just remember, come January 2005 when Bush is sworn in, it's not just about you, it's about this country and our rights. Do you want to see a Supreme Court filled with Scalias'and Thomas'? Ask yourself, do you want abortion to be outlawed? Affirmative action destroyed? The environment destroyed? Another Patriot Act? The 2004 election is about more than being a Democrat. It's larger than all of us. We need to take our country back from the BFEE because another 4 years of Bush will surely destroy us all.

If you don't like Clark, fine. Work your ass off to make your nominee the winner! But for God's sake, vote for whoever the Democratic nominee is in the General election! For the sake of our future, do it!

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030930/pl_afp/us_diplomacy_kristol_030930190756

US diplomats to get refresher course in Bush foreign policy from top neocon
Tue Sep 30, 3:07 PM ET Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US diplomats, often accused of not fully backing White House policies, are to get a refresher course in President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s vision for the world this week when a leading figure in the neoconservative movement speaks at the State Department.

William Kristol, who has at times over the past three years questioned the loyalty of career diplomats and once even that of Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites), is to address diplomats on Wednesday, the department said.

A prominent conservative columnist and chairman of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), Kristol is to present a speech entitled "The Bush Doctrine: Theory and Practice" in an apparent attempt to remind the diplomatic corps of the president's goals. <more>