Politics: A new beginning

[bilmore]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
Totally agree. That's why I had such high hopes for Clark;

If Clark wins, there are already quite a few ex-generals lined up to testify, to the press, about why he got booted out of there, why he lacks the moral character to be CIC, and why he has skated in the press so far. It won't be pretty at all. Dems would be well served by avoiding this slug altogether.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by bilmore
If Clark wins, there are already quite a few ex-generals lined up to testify, to the press, about why he got booted out of there, why he lacks the moral character to be CIC, and why he has skated in the press so far. It won't be pretty at all. Dems would be well served by avoiding this slug altogether.

Do you know what this dirt is, or do you just predict that where there's smoke, there'll be fire?

[Not Me]

Check out Tiger Woods fiance:



She is whiter than white. And guess where he proposed to her? South Africa!!!!

Tiger was championed by the black community as a hero. Now look who is going to be the future mother of his children. The whitest looking chick that I have seen.

What a slap in the face to black women and the black community who have so supported him. Unbelievable!!!!

[Not Me]

I don't know which I hate more. Thanksgiving during which an obese nation gorges itself until most are uncomfortable and ready to vomit. Or Christmas, during which a wealthy nation is so consumed with buying things that they trample a woman to death.

Both disgusting holidays, IMHO.

Please don't lecture me about the true meanings of these holidays. That is a fucking farse.

Cannot wait until the New Year so that this sick charade will be over.

http://www.local6.com/news/2670095/detail.html

Woman Knocked Unconscious By Wal-Mart Shoppers
Witnesses: Shoppers Stepped Over Woman Having Seizure

POSTED: 6:39 p.m. EST November 28, 2003
UPDATED: 11:10 p.m. EST November 28, 2003

ORANGE CITY, Fla. -- A 41-year-old woman was knocked unconscious and then trampled by a mob of shoppers who continued to step over her as she suffered a seizure during a Friday sale at Wal-Mart in Orange City, Fla., according to Local 6 News.

Authorities said that Patricia Van Lester arrived at Wal-Mart at 3 a.m. for an early sale on a DVD player for her mother. When the store's doors opened at 6 a.m., Van Lester grabbed the DVD player but was quickly overcome by hundreds of shoppers rushing into the store.

The woman was knocked to the ground, slammed her head on the ground and suffered at least one seizure, according to Local 6 News.

Her sister watched the incident and tried to stop the crowd as they made their way to the merchandise.

"I screamed, 'Stop, don't step on her, my sister is on the ground,' and nobody would listen," the woman's sister, Linda Ellzey said. "I've never seen so many people in a store at one time -- in one area. If there was a fire, nobody could've gotten out of there."

When paramedics arrived at the scene, they found the woman lying on top of the DVD player among shoppers who seemed to not even notice the unconscious woman on the floor, according to a witness.

Van Lester was airlifted to Halifax Medical Center in Daytona Beach. Ellzey said her sister will likely remain hospitalized for days.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
If Clark wins, there are already quite a few ex-generals lined up to testify, to the press, about why he got booted out of there, why he lacks the moral character to be CIC, and why he has skated in the press so far. It won't be pretty at all. Dems would be well served by avoiding this slug altogether.

Suuure. _CLARK_ lacks the moral character to be CIC -- as compared to Clinton or Bush II (who apparently is vastly more moral now, God Bless Him, than when he was a younger man who actually faced the possibility of harm (drinker, druggie, and evader of military obligations))? This is simply because many of his peers didn't like him? And because, when he was CINC in Europe, he attempted to go around Shelton (then his boss as Head of the JCS) to promote policies he believed in?

Is there anything else? I know that Shelton was quoted talkiing about Clark's "integrity" -- and another retired general who knew what it as about said in an interview that lying, etc. had nothing to do with it -- not an "integrity" issue -- just as set forth above.

I think that a Republican effort to taint the Democratic nominees' character _or_ (especially) to criticize his service (if Kerry or Clark) would be very ill-advised -- Bush is at least as vulnerable to such issues, including stuff that his campaign demonstrably lied about but was largely ignored by most people last time around.

Being really bright and ambitious, and willing to push one's agenda -- are hardly disqualifying factors for the presidency. Indeed, they are all but requirements.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov27.html


Hi All --

Referring back to club's posting a link to the Weekly Standard article on the Feith memorandum alleging a significant link between Hussein and al Qaeda -- here is a link to an article yesterday on the Washington Post's editorial page by David Ignatius, who writes quite a bit on national security and international affairs. The article pretty convincingly dissects the Feith memorandum as a political piece which ignores key evidence, and also explains why -- despite seeing everything cited by Feith, the CIA and British intelligence remain convinced that there was probably no real link between al Qaeda and the Hussein government.

Furthermore, having Douglas Feith disagree with the intelligence professionals on this point is barely more meaningful than having one of our posters do so -- or than me instructing our office's managing partner on the handling of a complex antitrust case.

S_A_M

[edited to add probably]

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2003Nov27.html


Hi All --

Referring back to club's posting a link to the Weekly Standard article on the Feith memorandum alleging a significant link between Hussein and al Qaeda -- here is a link to an article yesterday on the Washington Post's editorial page by David Ignatius, who writes quite a bit on national security and international affairs. The article pretty convincingly dissects the Feith memorandum as a political piece which ignores key evidence, and also explains why -- despite seeing everything cited by Feith, the CIA and British intelligence remain convinced that there was probably no real link between al Qaeda and the Hussein government.

Furthermore, having Douglas Feith disagree with the intelligence professionals on this point is barely more meaningful than having one of our posters do so -- or than me instructing our office's managing partner on the handling of a complex antitrust case.

S_A_M

[edited to add probably]

You must be smoking some leftover triptophane if you think that's convincing. The WaPo article merely dispells on of the numerous pieces of evidence cited in the WS article. There is also a follow up article from Feith that I will try to find and post.

[sgtclub]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/399roadd.asp

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...3/428gpkbi.asp

These were written before the WaPo article, but the WaPo article only focuses on one of the 40 or so pieces of evidence cited in the memo.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Not Me
I hate Christmas, thanksgiving, george Bush, black guys who date whites, etc.

I am sure almost everyone on the board will agree with me when I say we've never seen such strong opinions in a poster's first 15 posts.
Fluffer, is that you ole boy? Have you finally come home son?


edit: last post with head dress

[pretermitted_child]

Originally posted by Not Me

Tiger was championed by the black community as a hero. Now look who is going to be the future mother of his children. The whitest looking chick that I have seen.

What a slap in the face to black women and the black community who have so supported him. Unbelievable!!!!

Tiger isn't black. He's Cablinasian.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by pretermitted_child
Tiger isn't black. He's Cablinasian.

Yep. He doesn't even call himself black, yet he is held up as a black hero by the black community. And now he is marrying a really, really, white looking chick.

Doesn't take a PhD in psychology to figure out what is going on in his mind.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I am sure almost everyone on the board will agree with me when I say we've never seen such strong opinions in a poster's first 15 posts.

I am known for my grand entrances.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think that a Republican effort to taint the Democratic nominees' character _or_ (especially) to criticize his service (if Kerry or Clark) would be very ill-advised . . .

It certainly would be right now, while the Dems are trying to pick amongst the eight or ten or twelve viable candidates.

But, see how quickly this got stifled, by the GOP party types, back when The Gen first showed up? What they (apparently) have on him is of the kind and quality such that you don't use it to knock someone out of a primary - you use it later once that person has made it in as the party choice, as a sort of guaranteed killer weapon. Were The Gen to start winning states, the GOP leadership would be buying expensive champagne and ad time right now.

And, SAM, just as a measure of how far apart the two parties are right now on very basic issues - look at how you make a comment about how the Repubs just shouldn't even THINK of trying to use the "character" route, when they have such an ill-conceived character as Bush to uphold, and look at how (most likely) all of the real Dem posters nodded in quick agreement, meaning that you all just automatically have this "Bush is a liar/bad man" paradigm hard-wired. But then, consider that Bush's main strength among his own party lies in issues of trust and character. It's really sort of a scary divide, and tells me that there is such a lack of commonality of values that I wonder if there will be any kind of true consensus about anything in this country ever again.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by bilmore
Attacking Clark militarily sorta

While its probably a good general rule not to attack a soldier's record unless it involves being a surrender-monkey or suicide charge-orderer etc..., a rule which is probably especially true when the backlash is going to be the one that faces Bush (ex crack addict and drunk driver orders an army which he never really served to avenge his father), I would have to agree that it sounds like their are people in the military that are just itching to start bad mouthing Clark. And, as far as what is appearing in the press, it sounds like even his pals have heard what it is and are hedging their defense of the man.

Not entirely suggestive, but possibly telling, is this excerpt from an AP article that ran in the WashPo on the 28th (Friday) in an article about Clark's non-involvement in the Waco mess"

>>Waco "was a civilian operation that the military provided some support to" and "any decisions about where the support came from were my decisions, not General Clark's," Taylor said this week.

"Clark's totally innocent in this regardless of what anybody thinks about him," says Taylor, Clark's former commander. "He played no direct role in this activity nor did any of us."<<

A.) this guy has his own motivation to deny any involvement on the part of the military, though the military did provide equipment and advisors (who refused to grade an attack plan according to reports), and

B.) "in this" appears twice in the second paragraph of the quote. Rather than giving a more general defense of the man, it almost, sorta suggests that he knows what others are going to say to badmouth Clark, and he ain't stepping up to cut it off.

C.) Then again, going above and beyond in defending a Dem candidate while a Republican is in office, might not be the wisest career move for Taylor.

Still, even before I read Bilmore's thoughts on the subject, I did find the "in this" limitation to be at least mildly suggestive.

Hello

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
summarizes an editorial in the WP to contradict Club's well reasoned summary of alQueda-Iraq ties

From the Editorial, this admission, that on its own shows Club wins the argument:

The claim that Hussein's intelligence service had contacts with al Qaeda isn't new, and by itself it doesn't prove much. In the murky world of espionage, operatives are constantly checking out potential friends and adversaries; it would be surprising, in fact, if the Iraqis and Osama bin Laden's men hadn't met. CIA Director George Tenet summarized these feelers in an October 2002 letter to the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. He noted that contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda dated back to the early 1990s and had included discussions about giving al Qaeda operatives sanctuary in Iraq or helping them acquire chemical weapons.

Sorry, but after 9/11 I want other countries to understand that its not cool "checking out" al queda as a "potential friend." You know, the whole "pick a side" thing. Sure its "COWBOY", but prudent also. Double " not cool" points for "checking out" al queda if you're also "checking out" WMD manufacture. I'm sure most people on this board agree.

There's a reason why the CIA and British intelligence remained dubious about any serious Iraq-al Qaeda operational link, even though they knew about covert contacts between the two. That's because they had an unusually well-placed source in Iraq who told them before the war that in the late 1990s, Saddam Hussein had indeed considered such an operational relationship with bin Laden -- and then decided against it.

How many boxes of reports do the various intelligence agencies generate a month? The left wanted Bush to pull out a report about airplanes from clinton times from one of those boxes- and change airport security, ignore reports that Iraq had WMD, and then not worry about al queda-Iraq because in some other report some guy sadi don't worry.

Help me, has Saddam changed his mind ever? do you think if he otherwise felt the equation had shifted he might want to "check out" Osama again? LIBERAL, PLEASE!

Advocates for U.S. policy in Iraq should understand that it weakens their credibility, rather than strengthening it, when they seem to be cooking intelligence to serve President Bush's political interests.

No. advocates for your side have to understand that when a country is found "checking out" an organization that has the destruction of the US as its main goals, then the country is on the bad side of an equation. When you start explaining your "benign al queda contacts" theory to voters next fall you'll see who is found lacking in credibiltiy*.

*except for Neighborhood meetings in caostal Calif., Boston, and G'town townhouses.

"Biff, did you read that scathing Wa. Po. analysis of how the ties between Osama and Iraq were really quite normal given Iraq's stance? good stuff that! another Cordial?"