Tin Foil Hats and Wesley Clark

Last night I read "Watergate II, The Bush Administration Self Destructs" by Michael Ruppert www.fromthewilderness.com. In the article MR talks about essentially Bush is a goner "the powers that be" have already decided and the ball is rolling. He also discusses that it will not matter if Evil B is impeached if he is replaced by someone with the same agenda but with a friendlier demeanor. I am putting this in my own words.

Michael discusses that they are all gonna go. Bush, Cheney, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice ect.

So then I got to thinking, what if they (powers that be) decided to run another Republican candidate in 04 election. Ruppert already alludes to fact that there is/are shill(s) in the pack of Democratic candidates running for President now.

Also yesterday I read somewhere that the Evil B is going to begin campaigning next week. Do you think that it is possible * sees the writing on the wall.

Do you think that Wesley Clark could run in a Republican primary?

Maybe I need my pills.

although it is highly unlikely. But it sure isn't going to be Wesley Clark. One more time folks...he's NOT a Republican! :tinfoilhat:

And I am not bias either...Pay no attention to the Avitar ;)

I am also an avid (but not rabid!) Clark supporter. :)

eom

... promotes progressive policies that are anathema to GOP party members .....

It is HIGHLY unlikely that Clark would find support there ....

Why would the "powers that be" toss bush and company aside? He is making their every dream come true

Just look how *ie scandals have faded from view in the 3 weeks since that article appeared. Now it's Kobe, the gay bishop, and the Terminator in the news.

Given his level of lying (and incompetence) it's possible that Dubya and some of his cronies will self-destruct before the 2004 election.
But I'd be surprised to see them all go. Cheney has a huge gift for self-preservation--unless a microwave scrambles his pacemaker he will probably hang in there. Ugh--worse for us, except he does scare people and so would be an unlikely candidate.

Clark as a Repub. candidate? I just can't see it. He's on record with positions that are almost totally in the Democratic/progressive mainstream.

That is exactly what Wesley Clark wants, among other things. For that reason alone Grover Norquist would never allow him to be the Republican candidate. Moderate R's have no clout in the party anymore so while some of them would likely support Clark, it doesn't matter.

The good news is Clark is a Democrat and he thinks Bush is an idiot. While I'd love to see him run, even if he doesn't, he'll likely be involved in the campaign, maybe a running mate, or top pick for State or Defense. It's all good.

All I know is that Dub's already set about raising that $250 million to prove them wrong...and to continue doing US wrong!x(

Somehow, I think the forces of events...the economy, the Iraq quagmire, the ripple effect of the economy on state and local budgets (i.e. schools, etc.), the lack of progress finding Osama, the continuing lack of preparedness in protection against another 9/11...all of these things are going to be what "conspires" against Dub next year, rather than a lose-knit group of the powerful and influential.

Who on their side would run against Dub, though? Powell? Too loyal, even when repeatedly ignored. Cheney? Too like-minded, too secretive, and too unhealthy. John McCain? Does he REALLY want to put his family through that "personal destruction" wringer again?

Above all else next year, we need to offer someone from our side as president whom Americans can RESPECT again, can legitimately "look up to", and can BELIEVE when he states something to them. We've had enough of lies, and of those who don't know how to tell us anything but lies!:mad:

Reminds me a lot of what we felt we needed most after Watergate, when you think about it!:eyes:

B-)

Cheney, Rumsfeld, BFEE, PNAC. They have so much power now that it's impossible they won't run again. Who would kick them out?

that have raised my short hairs. Very few times in my life when I have paid attention to my short hairs, have they been wrong.

Something is wrong and it goes beyond that he won't stand up and proclaim he is a Democrat and proud of it.

To those that support him w/o knowing which way he leans, I believe they must seriously consider why they think of themselves as Democrats.

The present administration has sent the country so many zingers, I would not be surprised if this is just another.

Have raised your "short hairs"? Besides the fact that he hasn't declared a party. Is there anything that could open your mind to a Clark candidacy?

What does this mean exactly? "The present administration has sent the country so many zingers, I would not be surprised if this is just another."

I think Clark supporters have a pretty good idea which way he leans. Personally, I encourage him to run so that we can find out exactly where he stands on all the issues.

So who are you supporting? Just curious....

Zingers = propaganda

Until Clark declares his affliation, no one knows. You might suspect, but you do not know.

I do not trust someone that is not open and proud of being a Democrat.

I do not trust someone to govern, whose only life experience has been military. We are a country of citizens. The military is seperate.

Our country consists of We, the People.

Check it out. It says so in our Constitution.

That comment seemed a bit patronizing. Your argument is confusing...Wesley Clark is one of "We, the People". He's retired from the army and is a private citizen just like you and me. His experience has not only been military. He's been involved with several companies and a few think tanks since he retired.

You did not answer my question, asking if there was anything that would open your mind to a Wesley Clark candidacy. How are you going to feel if, by some chance, he ends up as Howard Dean's running mate?

There is nothing that would "open" my mind to a Clark candidacy. He does not have what I look for in a candidate for president.

Dean has already stated that he wants someone from Washington as a VP.

then declare. I think it is smart to get people's attention without declaring. It could bring in the moderate vote. They will see his ideas first, not party affiliation.

Party affliation is a definition of one's core beliefs. If one can not or will not declare their affliation, IMHO, it represents an unwillingness to stand up for those core beliefs.

if this election is like a war - then WHY oh why are so many of the soldiers apparently so eager to fall in behind a general who has ZERO experience in (political) battle, and who steadfastly refuses to even declare which side he's on???

Something is wrong and it goes beyond that he won't stand up and proclaim he is a Democrat and proud of it.

the guy is being way too coy.

it scares me to think that his supporters are apparently planning to hijack the dem nomination on behalf of a man who has never held public office, never run a political campaign, and slyly refuses to declare his allegiance.