Politics: A new beginning

[Bad_Rich_Chic]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Don't make that mistake, its good reading.

Definitely better reading than most of his books ... Atticus, you aren't in corp, are you? In corp all the conference calls are perfect for reading misc. articles on this and that.

And reading short stories, actually, but it's more embarassing to get caught reading those.

And for posting.

BR(seriously considering buzzing my secretary to bring me a coffee warmup while I'm stuck here, but can't quite bring myself to do it)C

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
It is damning, but it's not damning Clark. Did you even read it? He's talking about self-defense. Without WMD or links to Al Qaida, your guys are trying not to sound that note anymore.

Again, you're using sound bites to try to embarrass people without even considering the real issues of substance. Clark has lengthy opinions on these things, and they take you in a different direction than the President has. Either you are just playing a mindless game of "gotcha," or you think that Clark agreed with the President's policy's, and neither reflects well on you.

eta:

Now I've looked at Marshall's site, with the more complete version of what Clark said, and it's clear that Drudge is taking Clark out of context. Why do you even bother to repeat this crap?

I just post the news, I don't make it. And I don't read it as innocuous as you do, nor as damning as drudge suggests. I think there are problems with Clark's consistency.

[eta]

I post this crap for the same reasons you post to your stable of bloggers - for balance]

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
In corp all the conference calls are perfect for reading misc. articles on this and that.

As an aside, they're equally effective for that purpose in litigation. Ahh, multi-defendant class actions. My office is never cleaner.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic

BR(seriously considering buzzing my secretary to bring me a coffee warmup while I'm stuck here, but can't quite bring myself to do it)C

If you do, make sure to slap his ass on the way out. They tend to really like that.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I post this crap for the same reasons you post to your stable of bloggers - for balance]

I don't post for balance. I post because I think they have something interesting to say. IMHO, Drudge is a conduit for crap, and occasionally has something interesting. I don't bother to wade through crap, on his site or on others. I try to stick to blogs that have a high proportion of interesting stuff.

And if that's the best "balance" you can add on Clark, he's a shoe-in to be President.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't post for balance.

No, i made you a moderator for balance. No Roger A, I

I try to stick to blogs that have a high proportion of interesting stuff.

Ho Hum

And if that's the best "balance" you can add on Clark, he's a shoe-in to be President.

[IMG]

Clark has been consistent since he's been a Democrat. That's all that matters, right?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't post for balance. I post because I think they have something interesting to say. IMHO, Drudge is a conduit for crap, and occasionally has something interesting. I don't bother to wade through crap, on his site or on others. I try to stick to blogs that have a high proportion of interesting stuff.

And if that's the best "balance" you can add on Clark, he's a shoe-in to be President.

Interesting? You mean partisan. I agree with Andrew Sullivan:

WATCH JOSH SPIN: I can't do any better than the original, so just take a look at Josh Marshall's attempt to distinguish between good "unilateralism" under Clinton and bad "unilateralism" under Bush. Sometimes, Marshall's rabid partisanship gets the better of his intellectual honesty. It's just that he's usually better at disguising it.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
No, i made you a moderator for balance. No Roger A, I

And here I thought it was just because I knew how to fix tags.

Ho Hum

Let the record reflect that sgtclub was the one who brought Josh into this.

[IMG]

OK, that's just too busted for me to fix.

Clark has been consistent since he's been a Democrat. That's all that matters, right?

Even that doesn't matter. He could run for President opposing nation-building, and then start invading other countries to rebuild them, and he might be the greatest President since Harry S Truman.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://www.drudgereport.com/mattwc.htm

[link to drudge - allegations that Clark, in congressional testimony, supported (a) the Iraqi invasion, (b) the presence of WMD, and (c) our right to act unilaterally.]

Allegations? he dould just check the CR!

Why is this damaging? Clark isn't running as Howard Dean.
Also - IIRC, the testimony took place in summer or fall 2002, either while Clark was still in uniform or very shortly thereafter.

You can bet your ass that any General who testified in Congress on those subjects in 2002 would take or support those positions. The Pentagon works with them to prepare their testimony in advance. Those witnesses don't just "wing it". (Although some disagreed -- correctly -- with Rumsfeld, et al. on thre cost and duration of the aftermath.)

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Interesting? You mean partisan.

No, I mean interesting. The guys I link to are not partisan in the way that word is used by everyone who speaks the English language except bilmore. Kos is a partisan. He's on the Dean payroll, and I mean literally. I don't link to him. The guys I link to are perfectly happen to skewer Dems, and do. Marshall was just busting people in NH for misleading pro-Dean calls.

I agree with Andrew Sullivan:

WATCH JOSH SPIN: I can't do any better than the original, so just take a look at Josh Marshall's attempt to distinguish between good "unilateralism" under Clinton and bad "unilateralism" under Bush. Sometimes, Marshall's rabid partisanship gets the better of his intellectual honesty. It's just that he's usually better at disguising it.

I [eta sometimes] agree with Andrew Sullivan, too, but he's not saying anything here, other than the bilmore trick of labelling something as "partisan" instead of addressing it.

[Atticus Grinch]

As further proof that the lib contingent is not "partisan" by the strictest (i.e., dictionary) definition of the word, I'd say booing Bush as he laid a wreath at MLK's grave is a pretty classless* move. A special award for irony deficiency to the protestor who carried a sign reading "'It's not a photo-op George.'" Criticize the photo op by doing something other than picketing, assjack; a cemetary is also not a protest site.

*I defer to the FB definition of classless.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop

And if that's the best "balance" you can add on Clark, he's a shoe-in to be President.

Lieberman doesn't think so:

"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise.

"He may think it is 'old-style politics' to point this out, but the only thing old here is a candidate not leveling with the American people. If we want to begin anew and replace George Bush, we need to level with the American people, which is what I have done in this campaign and throughout my career. You may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand."

[SlaveNoMore]

Atticus Grinch
As further proof that the lib contingent is not "partisan" by the strictest (i.e., dictionary) definition of the word, I'd say booing Bush as he laid a wreath at MLK's grave is a pretty classless* move. A special award for irony deficiency to the protestor who carried a sign reading "'It's not a photo-op George.'" Criticize the photo op by doing something other than picketing, assjack; a cemetary is also not a protest site.

*I defer to the FB definition of classless.

And imagine the outrage if he stayed home. Lose-lose.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Lieberman doesn't think so:

I bet Zell Miller agrees. And he's a Democrat too.

Despite Sen. Lieberman's self-serving criticism of Clark, it seems to me that any one of the following quotes could be resurrected by Clark the candidate as grounds for criticism of the admin:

And so, the critical issue facing the United States right now is how to force action against Saddam Hussein and his weapons programs without detracting from our focus on Al Qaida or our efforts to deal with other immediate mid and long-term security problems.

We must bring others to share our views not be too quick to rush to try to impose them even if we have the power to do so.

Ideally, the international/multinational organizations will participate in the readying of such post conflict operations, the United Nations, NATO, other regional organization, Islamic organizations, but we have no idea how long this campaign could last, and if it were to go like the campaign against the Afghans, against the Taliban in which suddenly the Taliban collapsed and there we were.

We need to be ready because if suddenly Saddam Hussein's government collapses and we don't have everything ready to go, we're going to have chaos in that region. We may not get control of all the weapons of mass destruction, technicians, plans, capabilities; in fact, what may happen is that we'll remove a repressive regime and have it replaced with a fundamentalist regime which contributes to the strategic problem rather than helping to solve it.

These excerpts were among the ones posted by Marshall, so just include me in all future uses of "you guys" when referring to crackpot leftist bloggers and the drones who follow them. But I will say that after reading most of the rest of the Clark transcript the most damaging thing I can find is that Clark occasionally praises Richard Perle.

The most interesting thing about this teacup tempest is that it really illustrates how hard it is going to be for Clark to get his somewhat nuanced anti-admin-but-I'm-not-Dean Iraq stance across to the public. Especially if Democratic brothers like Holy Joe are doing him the favor of reinforcing people's misapprehensions.

[edited to clarify description of Clark's stance]

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Lieberman doesn't think so:

"Yesterday, Wesley Clark attacked me for pointing out his multiple positions on the war in Iraq. It is no longer credible for Wesley Clark to assert that he has always had only one position on the war - being against it. His own testimony before Congress shows otherwise.

"He may think it is 'old-style politics' to point this out, but the only thing old here is a candidate not leveling with the American people. If we want to begin anew and replace George Bush, we need to level with the American people, which is what I have done in this campaign and throughout my career. You may not always agree with me but you will always know where I stand."

Boy, if a political candidate is attacking another, what he says must be true, huh?

How Lieberman does in Iowa will give you some sense of how good this argument is.