RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions


Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )


Why hasn't the press ask Clark why he was removed ...(46 posts)

Why hasn't the press ask Clark why he was removed ...ClydeTri
Jan 20, 2004 11:21 AM
Why hasn't the press asked Wesley Clark why he was removed from being in command in Bosnia? Or have they. You keep reading references that he was removed because of "personel integrity and character" issues. I know the military wont relase the records, doesnt stop the press from asking or digging. If any other candidate, Repub or Demo was fired from a high level job, that would be fair play in the political world. Further, it could be very important to the voters why he was re-assigned. Seek the truth and it shall set you free.
The main stream media don't want to tweak ...Live Steam
Jan 20, 2004 11:30 AM
Bubba's boy. You know they tip-toe around anything that they think will offend the crown prince and his lovely matron. It will come out if he is relevant in November.
Clinton "fired" him. Now he is Clinton's man!!czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 11:42 AM
It all makes sense. Brilliant!
Yeah go figure?! Clark is surrounded by ...Live Steam
Jan 20, 2004 12:05 PM
Clinton/McAullife handlers/enablers. Clinton is on record as saying he supports Clark and that he would make a good president. I know I made this up, right? Clark is getting all of the support from the DNC. Kerry and the rest will be left hanging. They don't fit into the plan.
I guess Clinton fired him so Hitlary could be President!czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 12:24 PM
Brilliant! Well not quite, because the GOP and their pseudo-con ditto heads have outflanked him on this "fired" angle. Now Clarke has some 'splainin' to do!

Not at all asinine. The things you say make complete sense, and are not at all a silly joke.
Better watch that 'Hitlery' stuff around hereLive Steam
Jan 20, 2004 12:32 PM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34723

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ELECTION 2004
Clinton pulling Clark strings?
Army of former administration players, allies on general's camp viewed as endorsement

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: September 21, 2003
8:00 p.m. Eastern

© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

Democrats and Republicans alike are speculating former President Bill Clinton is the "man behind the curtain" pulling the levers of the presidential campaign of Democratic newcomer Retired Gen. Wesley Clark.

The former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, urged Clark to enter the race in the first place, reports the Associated Press.

"He's a smart man, served our country well," Clinton said of Clark in Iowa last weekend.

He was reportedly overheard describing his wife and Clark as "two Democratic stars" at a recent party in New York.

Democrat presidential candidate Gen. Wesley Clark

In addition to elbowing his fellow Arkansan into the pack of ten candidates for the Democratic nomination, Clinton has also had a hand in lining up the retired general's army of campaign advisers.

According to the Associated Press, former Commerce Secretary Mickey Kantor signed on as senior adviser, with a nudge from Clinton. In addition to Kantor, other Clintonites said to be on board include Skip Rutherford, head of the Clinton presidential library, former White House lawyer Bruce Lindsey and former Sen. David Pryor, D-Ark.

The AP reports former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, former White House aide Rahm Emanuel, now a congressman from Illinois, and former Clinton White House press secretary Mike McCurry participated in the first conference call convened by Clark.

And in addition to former Clinton administration officials Mark Fabiani and Eli Segal, the roster of Clark's team reportedly includes the high-profile names of James Carville and Paul Begala.

"I've offered to help all the candidates," Begala told the AP in a telephone interview.

Other Clark advisers also downplay the Clinton connection, pointing out that the former president, who pledged impartiality in the race for the Democratic nomination, counsels and praises other candidates.

Still, the political heavyweights from the Clinton administration stumping for Clark represents circumstantial evidence to some Democrats and party activists that Clinton is pulling Clark's strings, according to the AP.

For Clinton's part, a close associate, speaking on condition of anonymity, told the AP he isn't siding with any candidate, but is the most "emotionally invested" with Clark because he is the candidate with whom he has most in common.

Clinton's emotional investment has helped propel Clark ahead of his rivals just two days after entering the race. According to a Newsweek poll, Clark wins the support of 14 percent of the registered Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters, surpassing former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean, with 12 percent, Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, also with 12 percent, Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, with 10 percent and Missouri Congressman Dick Gephardt, 8 percent.

Conservative commentators theorize Clinton's promotion of Clark has to do with the political ambitions of the other "Democratic star." While some analysts suggest a weak Clark candidacy could pave the way for Hillary Clinton, others wonder whether a Clark-Clinton or a Clinton-Clark ticket could be in the making for either 2004 or 2008.

In fact, Clinton's recent public statements suggest he's recruiting his wife to become President Bush's eleventh rival for 2004.

"That's really a decision for her to make," he said Thursday, suggesting the decision has yet t
This is from September!BottomBracketShell
Jan 20, 2004 12:34 PM
Old news.
So? Clark still has ...Live Steam
Jan 20, 2004 12:42 PM
all the same ex-Clinton mobsters working for him after firing all of his staff on the recommendation of Terry McAullife. Nothing has changed in that regard. The only thing that did change is Kerry put up a much stronger showing in Iowa. I doubt that was in the plans.
No Kerry was definitely part of their plan.czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 12:45 PM
Their dark alliance sees all.

Brilliant! In no way silly nonsense.
But it is on the internet!czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 12:44 PM
It can't be stupid, silly nonsense that no rational person would bother with.
Yes it is!Live Steam
Jan 20, 2004 12:55 PM
http://www.reuters.com/newsPoliticsBios.jhtml?candidate=clark

http://www.gopusa.com/opinion/2004/vf_0120.shtml

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/15477.htm
And so are the corroborating sources!czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 1:03 PM
No wonder you are so well informed, Steam. No wonder your posts are so silly nonsense free!
More recently (i.e. this week's Time Magazine):OldEdScott
Jan 20, 2004 1:15 PM
we find that Bill is actually more or less meddling in everyone's campaign, in a positive way, of course. I suppose as a yellow rag Eastern liberal mouthpiece of the DNC (and DLC), Time is no reliable source for Steam and is in fact, ah, quite impeachable, but here it is nonetheless:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101040126-578918,00.html
You know it's sitting right here on my deskLive Steam
Jan 20, 2004 1:32 PM
I shoulda' thunk about getting that one too, but I actually think it's a 'cover' story, if ya' catchin' my drift. Man Ed haven't ya' learned yaself nothin' about intrigue? Bubba can't just yet, come right out and say 'Clark's my guy'. He needs to keep the otha' guys confidence sos he can git some info from them, unwittin' like. Ya' know. When he's done with 'em, they'll know it I'm sure. You know as well as anyone that Clinton can only back Clark if he wants the Witch to have a shot down the road. You also know he can't just as of yet, endorse any candidate, 'cause 1.the guy may lose and he doesn't like pickin' losers or bein' associated with them 2.he still needs to sort out this election's posibilities as well as '08s. Too many things can change between now and November to make a commitement to one guy.

Come on man. Get with it!
What was I thinking? I'm not NEARLYOldEdScott
Jan 20, 2004 1:35 PM
conspiratoria/paranoid enough to succeed in this business!
I wonder if Terry McAuliffe is advising other Democrats too?czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 1:34 PM
You know, in between his sinister machinations on behalf of Clark.
He didn't call the dogs off of Dean. My bet is ...Live Steam
Jan 20, 2004 1:39 PM
he helped pile on. Why would he do that? Why would he wreck the chances for they one guy in the party who has no problems raising money and strong support?

Ok I am wrong and this is just a silly conspiracy theory.
I don't get it. You are usually so informed.czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 1:45 PM
But here you are, seemingly ignorant of Dean's strategy to wrest the party away from centrist, establishment types.

Could anybody be that ignorant and ill-informed? Could anybody subscribe to such transparently bogus conspiracy theories? I doubt it. You couldn't be as ridiculous as you pretend to be.
Oh I get it. They're rescuing the party! LOL!! nmLive Steam
Jan 20, 2004 2:04 PM
Tsk, tsk. If only you <i>did</i> get it.czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 2:09 PM
Maybe you would have something halfway intelligent to say. Or maybe you could make a funny joke at their expense.
Oh? How about the photo of Rummy that Czar seems...94Nole
Jan 20, 2004 1:11 PM
to think is still relevant? Is that old news?

Oh, I know, that's a different issue.
You answered your own question. It only matters ...Live Steam
Jan 20, 2004 1:14 PM
if it fits their needs. The rest of us are just silly, ill-informed jerks. Didn't you know that?
I did! I knew it! :-) nmOldEdScott
Jan 20, 2004 1:16 PM
I posted "old news". Therefore Steam's sources are relevant!czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 1:31 PM
Nothing ill-informed about that line of reasoning.
You're "both" here, I guess it's a no haldol day for ya. nmNo_sprint
Jan 20, 2004 1:33 PM
Is bill105 OK? Did he sniff all the glue and leave you none?BottomBracketShell
Jan 20, 2004 1:39 PM
You're awfully perky for so late in the day, 1:30 in the afternoon. LOL!!!!!
Just be consistent. That's all I meant. (nm)94Nole
Jan 21, 2004 7:34 AM
"A foolish consistency is the hob-goblin of little minds"czardonic
Jan 21, 2004 9:13 AM
-Ralph Waldo Emerson

Inconsistency is a meaningless criticism.
You are tiresome. Meaningful = Czar's POV. I get it.94Nole
Jan 21, 2004 12:29 PM
What is comforting, at least to me, is that people who hold your view of things will never be able to affect my life in any meaningful way.

It is obvious, at least it seems from your posts over the period I have been coming here, that you are a very well-read and intelligent being. I hate to break the news to you, Czar, life isn't anywhere as complicated as you and those who think like you would like to THINK it is. It's really a shame that you are missing so much of yours inside of that mind of yours and within the hostile world of your existence.
I'm not sure what you think my world-view is. . .czardonic
Jan 21, 2004 12:47 PM
. . .but I readily concede that it is in no way absolutely correct. It certainly isn't hostile.
They've asked. They keep asking.dr hoo
Jan 20, 2004 11:52 AM
There was a big flurry of asking right around the time he first entered the race. Perhaps you were not paying attention. A bit before his original announcement and a bit after. Since then there have been no new revelations, so it is on the back burner for the time being.

On one side you have people saying "I would not vote for him, character and temperment issues, but I will say no more".

On the other side were folk saying "He stood up for what he believed in, went over his supervisors' heads, and so got pulled, but I will say no more".

http://www.thatsracin.com/mld/krwashington/7655336.htm gives a good overview. I am SURE people are digging around on it, and if a new quote, record, or speculation comes up, you will hear about it.
I've heard Shelton and some other generalBottomBracketShell
Jan 20, 2004 11:56 AM
on TV talking about John Kerry the same way, something about a *crisis of character* that kept them from supporting him, but I figured that was just because he opposed the Vietnam War after he came home. I think the military has a pretty low threshold for saying those things.
I've heard Shelton and some other generalClydeTri
Jan 20, 2004 12:29 PM
I read one article that hinted strongly it could be some issues related to extra marital affairs, which are verbotten in the military, but the author never came out explicitly and said that.
Great, that's all we need. nmBottomBracketShell
Jan 20, 2004 12:32 PM
Well what did you expect? After all The Philanderer in ChiefLive Steam
Jan 20, 2004 1:17 PM
has to support his philandering genreals. Isn't that always the case?
RE: The Philanderer in Chiefbboc
Jan 20, 2004 1:40 PM
"This post is deriding our sitting President! I think it's in bad taste. How could he be a credible poster here on RBR if he is going to make snide remarks about an elected official. I am appalled!!!!! " Live Steam

Switch out "sitting" to "former" and you can have an argument with yourself Steam. You are genuinely hilarious!!
There is a huge differenceNo_sprint
Jan 20, 2004 1:43 PM
Think cum shot on dress, lie, impeachment, etc.
Think paint thinner, glue etc.BottomBracketShell
Jan 20, 2004 1:50 PM
I have been keeping myself amused lately :O)Live Steam
Jan 20, 2004 2:00 PM
You guys are no fun. Either someone wants to be too serious, too cynical or too mean-spirited here. I figured I'd be all three today :O) Besides most of the democrats here should understand the mean-spirited, cynicism. They certainly loved Carville and Paul Begala and their mean-spirited cynicism.
In all honesty, Live SteamBottomBracketShell
Jan 20, 2004 2:06 PM
Your language is harsher than anyone else's here. When you talk about your political enemies you're really hateful. I don't know of anyone else who goes as far as you do except for the inhalant addicts.
He fancies himself quite the master of subtlety.czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 2:07 PM
It really is hilarious when he gets up on his high horse.
Actually I do laugh at him, unlike the inhalant twins whoBottomBracketShell
Jan 20, 2004 2:10 PM
just give me the creeps.
Agree. (nm)czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 2:16 PM
You guys should be so fortunate as LIve SteamSpoiler
Jan 20, 2004 2:53 PM
LS is probably happier than most of us. He believes what he says. He has a major news network that completely mirrors his views.

His side holds the political power. Even what he calls the liberal media is more interested in the spectical of the Democratic candidates bickering and the shifting poll numbers. Like the majority of todays forum discussions, all the energy goes into defending and attacking positions, while educating the voters on the candidates stand on the issues gets drowned out.

And to top it off, he's the most visable contributor to this forum. His style draws the most attention. He feels no pressure to conform to any independent standard of reason, while the rest of us are racking our brains trying to deal with his own homemade version. It's all so effortless for him.
Yep. Its <i>bliss</i> for Steam. (nm)czardonic
Jan 20, 2004 3:04 PM
re: Why hasn't the press ask Clark why he was removed ...Sintesi
Jan 21, 2004 4:38 PM
I"ve been reading up on the guy.

This article has something about the situation.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16795

My understanding is that Clark was basically forced to retire by Shelton and Cohen only 3 months before he was scheduled to officially retire anyway. Whether Clinton was in on it or was he trapped by a leak to the Washington Post seems to be of some conjecture. I think there was some petty crap goin on between Shelton, Cohen and Clark and the prior two decided to humiliate the latter for going behind their backs to the State Department and essentially getting too much credit. You know how it is with prima-donnas.

The "question of integrity" attributed to a quote from Hugh Shelton should be taken as nothing more than a smear unless he explains what it is exactly he is talking about. If Hugh Shelton knows something that makes Clark unqualified to be president he should say it don't you think? or other wise keep his mouth shut. I find his motivations and his refusal to elaborate suspect. For the record there are many who had served with Clark that tout his character as a major plus.

I don't know maybe there is something significant to the story but knowing politics I doubt it.

He's still being called a "flip-flopper" on the war but anyone who read his London Times articles, as I did, or read his report to the House Armed Services Committee, as I did, (10s of thousands of words btw) all documented prior to the war, knows that this is hardly the truth. His story now reads the same as it did then.

I think he deserves a chance. I haven't ruled him out.